🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3B8472B1.24B65CA5@but.us.transit-oriented.chickens>,
 David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.transit-oriented.chickens> wrote:

> Robert Cote wrote:
>  
> > In article <3B83F362.B6858B08@but.us.chickens>,
> >  David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> > 
> > > Robert Cote wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3B83940C.33E37CF3@erols.com>,
> > > >  Larry Gross <lcgross@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snippola]
> > >
> > > > > And yes.. most cars are SOV
> > > >
> > > > Oh? Really?  Most?  Not.
> > >
> > > This just in: empirical evidence (mainly from observations from 101 & 280
> > > in Bay Area) confirms that yes, most cars are SOV: my guess would be 80%.
> > 
> > There's a difference between empirical and anecdotal.  Not suprising
> > that you'd mistake anecdote (which has value as anecdote) for
> > empirical (which delineates criteria for observations).  For instance,
> > in this case a few factors that need to be considered:
> > 
> > Is there only one person in the car just because you only saw one?
> > 
> > Are you observing part of a trip after a drop off?
> > 
> > Is the 101/280 in any way representative?
> > 
> > Is your guess of 80% actually what you saw or was there abservational
> > bias or perhaps misrepresentation of the actual data?
> > 
> > Is time of day representative?
> > 
> > Since you were observing did you affect the local conditions?  I know
> > for one that I'd get my SUV full of kids as far away from you as
> > possible for instance.
> > 
> > Learn scientific process and stop guessing and stop mischaracterizing
> > anecdote as empirical evidence.
> > 
> > How's your Price-Anderson analysis coming along?
> 
> More massive missing-the-point on Cote's part.
> 
> Nowhere did I claim this was a rigorous research project. 

No, you never did make claims of rigor but then again you did call 
anecdote empirical.  I explained the difference and why I thought it 
important and even made some reasonable conjectures as to why your 
anecdote wouldn't stand up as evidence of anything more.   

> It ain't
> peer-reviewed research, for chrissakes; it's what I've observed with my own
> 2 eyes, guesstimated to the best of my ability. Accurate to zero decimal
> places. And I'm sticking by it.

No problem.  There's the old saying that the plural of anecdote is not 
data.  Unfortunately if you've been reading la.trans lately you know 
there's a poster that stood on an overpass last January and counted 
cars.  His count was sufficient to cause him to reject the Caltrans 
provided AADT counts fort this corridor.  So you see, when anecdote 
gets in the wrong hands it can become dangerous.  

> Since you've brought it up umpteen times, yes, what about that 20 lbs. of
> CO2? My take on that tempest in a catalytic converter is this: so fucking
> what if the actual amount turned out to be 18.2 lbs, or whatever it was:
> that, too, was not a rigorous scientific research project. Under those
> conditions, I have no problem with asserting that burning a gallon of gas
> releases /nearly/ 20 lbs. of CO2.

I am personally responsible for having removed 97.2 million tons of 
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually.  That's the difference 
between the incorrect 20 lbs and the worst case 18.2 lbs. numbers.  
I've just personally contributed to this nations' compliance with the 
stated goals of Kyoto.  You may not think a 10% immediate reduction in 
the third largest manmade US CO2 source is a big deal but...

> (If it makes you feel any better, though, I'll let you call my observations
> "anecdotal" rather than "empirical".)

That would be fine.  Hopefully others will follow your example.  
 
> Oh, and one more thing: who the /hell/ is "Leroy Baxter", anyway?
> (Groan: I'm sure I'll live to regret asking that.)

Leroy Baxter is an "anonymous" poster that has acheived special class 
status over the last several years based on the quality and 
consistency of his posts.  Over the years he has posted under LB/Likes 
Bach/Allison/Cuiedigan and others.  Currently posting as "John" and 
trolling primarially in some Oregon and the a.p.u newsgroups he's one 
of those that usually end up being asked if he's really that stupid by 
about the third posted exchange.  A strong advocate of the Portland 
Experiment in centralized land use and transit oriented development, 
Leroy makes a useful foil with which to discover the truth behind the 
propoganda.  Their MAX light rail line is the probably the second most 
sucessful new light rail system in the nation and one of the most 
mature.  Additionally, Tri-Met is a very transparent organization 
allowing internet discussions to examine details that are usually 
obscured in agencies like the MTA or BART for instances.  Leroy is 
harmless because despite having never admitted error and employing a 
low class grade of wit and predictable plodding posting style he also 
lacks the strength of his supposed convictions.  Without strength of 
conviction and no personal character issues to restrain him, Leroy 
uses badgering and repetition when facts fail him.  

Becoming one of Leroy's special targets isn't in the same league as 
being killfiled by Mike Dahmus (I'm the only person to ever be 
killfiled twice!) or being the only person on the entire internet that 
is in someone's killfile "for legal reasons" but it is something to 
aspire to as a sign of being able to discuss adult subjects despite 
the distractions.   
---------

Anyway looking back at my post I said:

> > Since you were observing did you affect the local conditions?  I know
> > for one that I'd get my SUV full of kids as far away from you as
> > possible for instance.

That was just snotty.  Sorry.  I had a point and it came out wrong.  
What I meant was that when you are in traffic flow you affect local 
conditions and you don't really interact with that many vehicles 
unless you are behaving differently than they.  There's a whole bunch 
of reasons why you think you saw 80% SOVs but there's also a whole lot 
of reasons to not rely on that for planning transportion.