🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

>grimrod@mindless.moc (Brandon Sommerville) wrote:
>
>
>>I say "prove it", you say "read this and eat crow", and now you
>>weren't trying to prove it? 
>
>I said read it.  You said prove it.  Oh never mind.  A childish mind
>isn't going to figure it out.  

A childish mind?  You truly slay me Earl.  

>>As I asked Mr. Weiser, where is the correlation between speed law
>>compliance and speed related fatalities on Interstates?  And the
>>courts don't prove speed kills, they only prove that laws were broken.
>>Big difference.
>
>Only in Brandon's dream world.  Like I said, you're just gonna have to
>learn the hard way. 

My dream world?  I'm not the one living in a world where exceeding the
speed limit turns one into a hurtling meteor of destruction, despite
compliance rates being below 10% nationally prior to the lifting of
the NMSL.  But that's all a dream, isn't it?

>>Discussing the number of deaths out of context is just plain stupid.
>>Yes 350 more fatalities occurred.  Yes Interstate fatalities were up
>>by 9%. 
>
>Hehehe.... that's the sound of Brandon's ship sinking and the
>screaming is because he has no life preserver.

Are you particularly thick today?  Is math beyond simple addition a
little too challenging for you?  What does it mean if fatalities are
up by 9% and the VMT is up by 10%?  It is futile to discuss it because
we don't know yet what the results are going to be since the VMT
information isn't available yet.  The report itself warns you that it
means nothing, but you are crowing about some huge victory here.
Truly remarkable.

>>>I hereby challenge
>>>Brandon to find one listing speeding as the cause and get it
>>>overturned.   You backed out of the other challenge.  This one is as
>>>easy as it gets pal.  Get crackin' or back down, the choice is yours.
>
>>Heh, you really make me laugh sometimes, Earl.
>
>Yeah, I know.   A simple challenge that you can do in your own
>backyard and you back down.  How predictable.  Brandon is full of hot
>air but when it comes time to DO something he makes excuses and backs
>down.

So because I don't think speeding is the root of all evil as you do,
it means I think it cannot cause harm?  That's quite the leap of logic
you've made, Earl.  Quite mentally athletic in your dotage, aren't
you?

>>I have never claimed that excessive speed is not dangerous. 
>
>Blub blub blub......
>
>(Splash)... the sound of a wreath being tossed on the whirlpool

Wow, what an intellectual response.  This is why I love debating with
you Earl, you accuse me of being childish and end your post this way.
And the best part of it is you aren't even smart enough to see the
humour in it.
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"