No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second. The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey that the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse than".
It's your hole.

On 27/10/2014 20:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second. The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey that the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse than".
It's your hole.



So a cyclist with a working light from poundland is as difficult to see
as a cyclist with no light at all. You are potty.

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second. The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey that the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse than".
It's your hole.

Trying to decipher your wriggling here - are you saying that Poundland
lights are "no better than" no lights at all?

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 27/10/2014 20:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would
undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second. The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey that
the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse than".
It's your hole.



So a cyclist with a working light from poundland is as difficult to see
as a cyclist with no light at all. You are potty.

Completely barking. But then again he is a psycholist, and as such will
never admit that he's said anything wrong, but will continue to duck and
dive to try to confuse the issue.

There is a famous saying which seems to cover this : Never argue with an
idiot, he will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:32:37 +0000, Tarcap wrote:

****wit

People who are angry insult people because in their anger they cannot
think of a better way to handle it, except to start a fight and make the
other person feel bad.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:29:15
-0000 the perfect time to write:



"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would
undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second. The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey that the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse than".
It's your hole.

Trying to decipher your wriggling here - are you saying that Poundland
lights are "no better than" no lights at all?

By Jove, I think you are finally getting it!

Cheap lights only serve to give the cyclist unwarranted confidence
that they will be seen, while providing none of the benefits of
actually being visible (except by shining them in your eyes from 12"
range in the shop, to admire how bright they are).

Ye Gods! Another psycholist arguing against clear logic!
Only the weakness of your case just proves how much in denial you are.
Although, then again, it is PhilW Lee, who would argue that the moon is
made of green cheese if he thought it could help to defend a fellow psycho.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:32:37 +0000, Tarcap wrote:

****wit

People who are angry insult people because in their anger they cannot
think of a better way to handle it, except to start a fight and make the
other person feel bad.

You've been on the bottle again, haven't you?

On 28/10/2014 11:39, Tarcap wrote:


"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:29:15
-0000 the perfect time to write:



"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by
introducing irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and
whether they are effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.

No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give you 10/10 for
effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity what you have
said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are
making yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on
here - if there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would
undoubtedly
win gold every time.

When an express statement exists that one thing is "worse than" another
thing then it is obvious the first cannot be "better than" the second.
The
first is not even "equivalent to" the second. But a disagreement with
"better than" only produces "no better than" which can only convey
that the
two things are equivalent.

You make the mistake of trying to turn "no better than" into "worse
than".
It's your hole.

Trying to decipher your wriggling here - are you saying that Poundland
lights are "no better than" no lights at all?

By Jove, I think you are finally getting it!

Cheap lights only serve to give the cyclist unwarranted confidence
that they will be seen, while providing none of the benefits of
actually being visible (except by shining them in your eyes from 12"
range in the shop, to admire how bright they are).

Ye Gods! Another psycholist arguing against clear logic!
Only the weakness of your case just proves how much in denial you are.
Although, then again, it is PhilW Lee, who would argue that the moon is
made of green cheese if he thought it could help to defend a fellow psycho.


It is weird, because the human eye can see a single burning candle at up
to thirty miles on a dark night. Yet would be unable to see it if it
were unlit.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:02:10 -0000, "TMS320" wrote:

snip

If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing.

That is the opinion I don't agree with. Exactly the same as earlier.


perhaps you can explain in words of one syllable for those who cannot
understand what you are claiming, or the reason for your wriggling, precisely
why you claim what you do above.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:56:54 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip


By Jove, I think you are finally getting it!

Cheap lights only serve to give the cyclist unwarranted confidence
that they will be seen, while providing none of the benefits of
actually being visible (except by shining them in your eyes from 12"
range in the shop, to admire how bright they are).


I think I understand.

A psycholist would rather ride with no lights at all than a light which cost
£67 and had an output to rival a search-light.

Perhaps that is why so many of them think they are safer with no lights at all.

Unless they are all ****wits of course.

Nice to hear from you Anchor - may I have just a little more milk next time.