Personally, I really don't care if you wear a helmet or not...

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:57:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

What's with this latest habit of replying twice to everything? First one
just a rough draft?

I'm commenting on two different aspects of what you said.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:54:21 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

You're so slimy I'm surprised a chair will hold you. (Note: my analogy was
about human body parts supposedly evolving so no adaptive/protective
equipment is necessary, as per Damnitall's statement. You introduce
probability into the discussion and then "object" to an already established
analogy using your additional parameters. It's sneaky, disingenuous, and
most of all flatly dishonest.)

No, what is dishonest is choosing your examples from things that are
so different in nature with regards to the control the participants
have over them and the nature of the problem being protected against.
It's a sloppy set of examples you've pulled together --

I'm not sure if you have picked them intentionally for that reason or
unintentionally not realizing it. Considering how dope you are in
many things, I'm guessing the latter but am not sure.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoting Pat Lamb :
As I understand it, the right figure is something like 61%, and that's
statistically insignificant. Do you have a citation I can use to make
this argument? Web pages are all very fine for spreading information,
but a journal article (or letter) wins arguments.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is as full of citations as an egg is of meat.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, July.

Sandy wrote:
Bill Sornson a écrit :
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:49:07 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:


Not "a ladder" -- a ladder with thin round steps. (IOW, bare feet
will hurt like hell -- sort of why people wear stiff-soled work
shoes for construction jobs.) As for trail running, unless it's
buff singletrack with no rocks, roots, ruts, etc., nearly everyone
would wear -- now this may shock you -- trail running shoes
specially made with more tread than regular running shoes.



Ah, now you are making the analogy to which I objected.


You're so slimy I'm surprised a chair will hold you. (Note: my analogy was
about human body parts supposedly evolving so no adaptive/protective
equipment is necessary, as per Damnitall's statement. You introduce
probability into the discussion and then "object" to an already established
analogy using your additional parameters. It's sneaky, disingenuous, and
most of all flatly dishonest.)

Thanks for verifying what an obtuse weasel and prick you are. I'll consider
your future comments and arguments accordingly.

Sorno



But human body parts, here the skull, DID adapt !

Why in the 19th century, even having adapted to cover horseriding falls,
the low angle fall from early cycles is critical to the species.
Ditto for adapting and morphing as the automobile came along, and then
the airplane.
Even as we speak, proto-skulls are gathering calcium, etc., to cope with
the advent of space exploration.
Rapid, accurate adaptive mutation is scientific ! Really. Not just
selection, where the clumsy clowns die off, but conscious change by design.

Didn't you know this stuff ? It's well documented. Just ask David.



Apparently, the poor idiot thinks an egg is full of meat. Sad....but it
explains his appreciation of Raven's "ice cream".