Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2421
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<4vjipvgdm34g07uc2pssprq3iqhtppflfj@4ax.com>. ..
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
> >And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
> >fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
> >collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
> >predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
> >unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
> >understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
> >won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is
> generally
> >considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it
> avoids.
> >(outside a few BMW commericals)
> >
> >Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
> >the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
> >aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
> >can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
> >afford for when they crash.
>
> Where did I claim that Brent?
>
> You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>
> >Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
> >predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
> >I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
> >tell, that I ignored.
>
> It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
>
> That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
> claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
> drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
> ridiculous, hence my reply.
>
> >I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving
> experience
> >to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of
> drivers to
> >be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
> >It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
>
> LOL. Psychic, eh?
>
> To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
> ridiculous.
>
> >While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
> >even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
> >individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
> >this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
> >commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
> >both front and rear would need to be filmed.
>
> And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
>
> Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
> to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
> the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
I never claimed immunity, simply that I feel that I can predict the
actions of *enough* (i.e. the majority of) drivers that it is of more
benefit, safety-wise, to base my car purchasing decisions on "active
safety" attributes like handling, acceleration, braking, etc. rather
than "passive safety" features like airbags, crumple zones and the
like. The fact that many people seem to be basing their vehicle
purchases on passive safety over active safety is a telling commentary
on how people view driving in the US - i.e. that crashes are
unavoidable and will happen to everyone eventually. That doesn't seem
to be too far removed from reality, as I've actually heard many people
express such views in conversation - far more than I've heard mulling
over the handling characteristics of potential vehicle purchases.
nate
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
> >And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
> >fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
> >collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
> >predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
> >unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
> >understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
> >won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is
> generally
> >considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it
> avoids.
> >(outside a few BMW commericals)
> >
> >Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
> >the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
> >aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
> >can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
> >afford for when they crash.
>
> Where did I claim that Brent?
>
> You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>
> >Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
> >predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
> >I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
> >tell, that I ignored.
>
> It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
>
> That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
> claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
> drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
> ridiculous, hence my reply.
>
> >I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving
> experience
> >to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of
> drivers to
> >be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
> >It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
>
> LOL. Psychic, eh?
>
> To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
> ridiculous.
>
> >While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
> >even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
> >individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
> >this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
> >commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
> >both front and rear would need to be filmed.
>
> And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
>
> Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
> to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
> the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
I never claimed immunity, simply that I feel that I can predict the
actions of *enough* (i.e. the majority of) drivers that it is of more
benefit, safety-wise, to base my car purchasing decisions on "active
safety" attributes like handling, acceleration, braking, etc. rather
than "passive safety" features like airbags, crumple zones and the
like. The fact that many people seem to be basing their vehicle
purchases on passive safety over active safety is a telling commentary
on how people view driving in the US - i.e. that crashes are
unavoidable and will happen to everyone eventually. That doesn't seem
to be too far removed from reality, as I've actually heard many people
express such views in conversation - far more than I've heard mulling
over the handling characteristics of potential vehicle purchases.
nate
#2422
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message news:<4vjipvgdm34g07uc2pssprq3iqhtppflfj@4ax.com>. ..
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
> >And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
> >fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
> >collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
> >predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
> >unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
> >understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
> >won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is
> generally
> >considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it
> avoids.
> >(outside a few BMW commericals)
> >
> >Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
> >the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
> >aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
> >can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
> >afford for when they crash.
>
> Where did I claim that Brent?
>
> You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>
> >Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
> >predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
> >I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
> >tell, that I ignored.
>
> It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
>
> That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
> claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
> drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
> ridiculous, hence my reply.
>
> >I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving
> experience
> >to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of
> drivers to
> >be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
> >It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
>
> LOL. Psychic, eh?
>
> To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
> ridiculous.
>
> >While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
> >even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
> >individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
> >this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
> >commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
> >both front and rear would need to be filmed.
>
> And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
>
> Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
> to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
> the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
I never claimed immunity, simply that I feel that I can predict the
actions of *enough* (i.e. the majority of) drivers that it is of more
benefit, safety-wise, to base my car purchasing decisions on "active
safety" attributes like handling, acceleration, braking, etc. rather
than "passive safety" features like airbags, crumple zones and the
like. The fact that many people seem to be basing their vehicle
purchases on passive safety over active safety is a telling commentary
on how people view driving in the US - i.e. that crashes are
unavoidable and will happen to everyone eventually. That doesn't seem
to be too far removed from reality, as I've actually heard many people
express such views in conversation - far more than I've heard mulling
over the handling characteristics of potential vehicle purchases.
nate
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
> >And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
> >fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
> >collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
> >predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
> >unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
> >understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
> >won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is
> generally
> >considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it
> avoids.
> >(outside a few BMW commericals)
> >
> >Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
> >the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
> >aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
> >can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
> >afford for when they crash.
>
> Where did I claim that Brent?
>
> You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>
> >Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
> >predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
> >I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
> >tell, that I ignored.
>
> It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
>
> That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
> claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
> drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
> ridiculous, hence my reply.
>
> >I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving
> experience
> >to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of
> drivers to
> >be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
> >It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
>
> LOL. Psychic, eh?
>
> To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
> ridiculous.
>
> >While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
> >even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
> >individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
> >this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
> >commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
> >both front and rear would need to be filmed.
>
> And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
>
> Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
> to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
> the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
I never claimed immunity, simply that I feel that I can predict the
actions of *enough* (i.e. the majority of) drivers that it is of more
benefit, safety-wise, to base my car purchasing decisions on "active
safety" attributes like handling, acceleration, braking, etc. rather
than "passive safety" features like airbags, crumple zones and the
like. The fact that many people seem to be basing their vehicle
purchases on passive safety over active safety is a telling commentary
on how people view driving in the US - i.e. that crashes are
unavoidable and will happen to everyone eventually. That doesn't seem
to be too far removed from reality, as I've actually heard many people
express such views in conversation - far more than I've heard mulling
over the handling characteristics of potential vehicle purchases.
nate
#2423
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
#2424
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
#2425
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> >>>than other basic forces.
>
> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
> >
> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
> >much more.
> >
> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> >>>behaviors.
>
> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
> >
> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
making at this time. By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
<snip>
> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
do so.
<snip moronic abuse>
>
> Try learning some science.
Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
nate
ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
#2426
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >
> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read Lloyd,
> >nor where you have been published.
> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
with
> >your shameful behavior.
> >
> >
> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree, your
field
> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
I asked you first, oh lying one.
#2427
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >
> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read Lloyd,
> >nor where you have been published.
> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
with
> >your shameful behavior.
> >
> >
> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree, your
field
> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
I asked you first, oh lying one.
#2428
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
> >
> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read Lloyd,
> >nor where you have been published.
> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist
with
> >your shameful behavior.
> >
> >
> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree, your
field
> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
I asked you first, oh lying one.
#2429
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjfa3$b81$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <5q2nb.4730$X22.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >>
> >> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
> >learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
learning
> >some science.<CLICK>...........
> >
> >Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
Parker
> >record on there again. ;-D
> >
> >
> >
> Would someone please tell the 6th-grade drop-outs here to stop arguing
science
> with scientists? As Pogo said, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits
with an
> unarmed opponent.
Is there a scientist here, because Lloyd sure as hell isn't one.
#2430
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjfa3$b81$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <5q2nb.4730$X22.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >>
> >> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
> >learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
learning
> >some science.<CLICK>...........
> >
> >Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
Parker
> >record on there again. ;-D
> >
> >
> >
> Would someone please tell the 6th-grade drop-outs here to stop arguing
science
> with scientists? As Pogo said, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits
with an
> unarmed opponent.
Is there a scientist here, because Lloyd sure as hell isn't one.