🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:
> 
> eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:
> 
> >>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)
> 
> >The rate of what?
> 
> Never mind.  It's obviously beyond you.
> 
> >No, but you're dealing with someone with a solid grounding in basic (and even
> >some quantum) physics, and I recognize that this is something you're missing.
> >Pretty odd considering your claim to "expertise" in this area.
> 
> In 1992 I wrote a computer program for accident investigators and the
> last update was last year.  Seems odd I could write something like
> that and have it reviewed in a national police magazine if I didn't
> have at least some understanding of the subject.  Perhaps I should
> have consulted you first?  We could have marketed it as a game. :=]
> 

well, outside of your programing ability (yeah right), his math and
physics was correct, your was not...plain and simple....your just not
hoinest enough to say that you made a mistake.  Pity.  I figured one day
you would grow up and become a man and admit when your wrong Earl, but I
guess not....


> >I've visited their excellent site.  I'd vastly prefer to be driving with the
> >clientele of their site than the clientele of yours.
> 
> Naturally.
> 
> > From what I've seen their
> >data is from external sources and any interpretations are no more biased than
> >those on your site.
> 
> Naturally.
> 
> >You'll not find me arguing that seatbelts are a bad thing or that it doesn't
> >make sense that death rates would go down from wearing them.  But they'll have
> >no impact whatsoever on accident rates,
> 
> Naturally.  I don't recall anyone saying they did.  All they do is
> improve the odds of survival in a crash.
> 
> >and I think that's what we need to
> >focus on in the speed debate.  Nobody here is arguing that going faster will
> >not result in more damage in the event of an accident, or that seatbelts will
> >not prevent some injuries.  We're arguing whether or not speed in and of itself
> >is primarily *responsible* for a significant number of accidents (as opposed to
> >fatalities).
> 
> Speeding does cause crashes.  That the speeding crowd doesn't
> acknowledge that is not surprising however thankfully the courts of
> this land aren't blinded by that kind of bias and routinely render
> fair verdicts in these cases.
> 
> >>>No, I want to drive at a fast, safe, and reasonable speed (which is entirely
> >>>possible) without being unreasonably penalized for doing so.
> 
> >>Same thing.
> 
> >Not at all.
> 
> Sure it is.  Maybe you soothed your conscience with the semantics but
> it is still very much the same thing.
> 
> Someone says hi:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/victim.jpg