survey concludes
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
SC400
Originally posted by marauder
No, my statement stands. The reasoning is simple: the rate of accidents and the rate of dumb moves are proportional with each other. While you didn't see one, there must have been 15,000 BMWs that did get into accidents today somewhere in the country (since they do make up 90%, right?).
I'm looking at the clock, and the date has now rolled over not too long ago to 9/11. It's a reminder that there are better things to worry about, so I'm going to just drop this thread -- it's no longer entertaining and I know that I won't be able to get you to acknowledge that the truth is different from your perception. I've tried presenting questions which logically refute your 90% figure, but you're either dodging them or coming up with more silly claims. So good luck out there and drive safely.
No, my statement stands. The reasoning is simple: the rate of accidents and the rate of dumb moves are proportional with each other. While you didn't see one, there must have been 15,000 BMWs that did get into accidents today somewhere in the country (since they do make up 90%, right?).
I'm looking at the clock, and the date has now rolled over not too long ago to 9/11. It's a reminder that there are better things to worry about, so I'm going to just drop this thread -- it's no longer entertaining and I know that I won't be able to get you to acknowledge that the truth is different from your perception. I've tried presenting questions which logically refute your 90% figure, but you're either dodging them or coming up with more silly claims. So good luck out there and drive safely.
! I was a hardcore audiophile once upon a time and used to spend my days teaching other audio newbies about psychoacoustic perception versus white-paper data. I also used to sell the stuff, which is a great field study on human perception 
. The rates of accidents and dumb moves are probably proportionate to eachother , but not necessarily indicative of one or the other. There are many other factors that you are neglecting that would dwarf the relation between dumb moves and resulting accidents. Like road conditions, weather, and distractions like food spills and cell phones to name a few. Idiot stunts only account for a miniority of accidents, otherwise they wouldn't be called accidents. They'd be called idiot damage or something along the lines. On my parting note, have a safe and uneventful 09-11-02 and never ever forget what happened last year.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Porsche 997 C2S
Originally posted by lex400sc
Okay idiot, I don't drive from Pleasanton to Los Angeles City, stop, then turn around and head back. Here's what I did on my last trip to LA: Drove from Pleasanton to Santa Barbara and dropped off a friend there, then proceeded on to Canyon Lakes to party at Tommy Lee's summer house. Drove back from Canyon Lakes to Huntington Beach the next morning to watch my friend's band play at the Core Tour. While at Huntington, I got a call from my other friend in Arcadia who wanted a ride to HB, drove to Arcadia to pick her up and back to Huntington Beach. After the Core Tour we drove to a house part in HB then later that night drove to USC for a frat party. After a few hours of USC, we drove to some bar in West Hollywood, then at the end of the night drove back to my friend's house in Huntington Beach. In the morning I drove back up to Pleasanton stopping at Santa Barbara to pick up the girl we dropped off there, and headed back to Pleasanton where I dropped off three people at three different houses. If you want to continue being nitpicky like an old lady, I'll supply you all the addresses of the places I stopped including all gas stations and restaurants and you can MapQuest again and make sure I'm dead on to the tenth of a mile
. That whole trip was no less than 1000 miles, and I'll bet however much you have ***** enough to bet on that. One trip to LA we headed down to a night club in Rosarita, Mexico--another 5 hours south of LA. And many many times on my way down to LA--which I might add I'm not always driving my own car--- we stop by to visit our friend in San Diego State. And FYI, I'm driving to Stockton this weekend to attend BoardStock 2002, good for another 150 miles, with a possible stop at Lake Don Pedro.
Once again, let me reiterate that the "80,000 miles" figure, LIKE the "60,000 mile figure" I produced were off the top of my head estimations. Do you want my VIN number so that you can read through my service track record and verify those figures as well??? Christ, some people will split as many hairs as it takes in attempts to discredit someone else. Pathetic.... I can't believe I'm here trying to justify myself to someone like you who I'd normally make look like a fool with a simple facial expression.
Okay idiot, I don't drive from Pleasanton to Los Angeles City, stop, then turn around and head back. Here's what I did on my last trip to LA: Drove from Pleasanton to Santa Barbara and dropped off a friend there, then proceeded on to Canyon Lakes to party at Tommy Lee's summer house. Drove back from Canyon Lakes to Huntington Beach the next morning to watch my friend's band play at the Core Tour. While at Huntington, I got a call from my other friend in Arcadia who wanted a ride to HB, drove to Arcadia to pick her up and back to Huntington Beach. After the Core Tour we drove to a house part in HB then later that night drove to USC for a frat party. After a few hours of USC, we drove to some bar in West Hollywood, then at the end of the night drove back to my friend's house in Huntington Beach. In the morning I drove back up to Pleasanton stopping at Santa Barbara to pick up the girl we dropped off there, and headed back to Pleasanton where I dropped off three people at three different houses. If you want to continue being nitpicky like an old lady, I'll supply you all the addresses of the places I stopped including all gas stations and restaurants and you can MapQuest again and make sure I'm dead on to the tenth of a mile
. That whole trip was no less than 1000 miles, and I'll bet however much you have ***** enough to bet on that. One trip to LA we headed down to a night club in Rosarita, Mexico--another 5 hours south of LA. And many many times on my way down to LA--which I might add I'm not always driving my own car--- we stop by to visit our friend in San Diego State. And FYI, I'm driving to Stockton this weekend to attend BoardStock 2002, good for another 150 miles, with a possible stop at Lake Don Pedro.Once again, let me reiterate that the "80,000 miles" figure, LIKE the "60,000 mile figure" I produced were off the top of my head estimations. Do you want my VIN number so that you can read through my service track record and verify those figures as well???
Christ, some people will split as many hairs as it takes in attempts to discredit someone else. Pathetic.... I can't believe I'm here trying to justify myself to someone like you who I'd normally make look like a fool with a simple facial expression.
I've been making reasoned arguments discussing why your figures may be an exaggeration, yet you respond with ad hominem attacks about me. Of course, you know so much about me -- I must be just like a little old lady, I must be an idiot, and yes, 19-year-old riceboys that drive 7-year old Toyotas with 420,000 miles on them can make me look like a fool with a simple facial expression.
The fact of the matter is, I've discredited your statements over and over again. When you can't respond with reasoned arguments, you resort to name calling. I can do the same. But I think Marauder and I have both made our points -- you exaggerate, distort the truth and in the end have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not simply splitting hairs -- if I claim to be a great wine expert, because I drink 3000 bottles of wine a year and claim that 90% of California Cabernets are junk, I would be easily discredited by someone pointing out that I would have to drink 13.6 bottles a day, a nearly impossible figure. If I were to retract my statement, and state that I actually drink only 500 bottles a day, the rest of my statements, too, would become suspect.
While I'd like to see you present a retort that is reasoned and rational, I think you'll stick to name calling. Until you present me with an argument that is devoid of such childish behavior, I will also drop this thread. Have a safe 9.11, and you're right about one thing ... let us never forget.
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
SC400
My insults were made to demonstrate just how foolish your whole basis of argumentation is. Here's your basic theory: because I make off-the-wall estimates that don't correlate to NASA findings, I must be full of shiit then? Right? Because I said something like 90% and it could be 85% or 95%, I must be lying out of my *** right? Please.....
So am I to believe you've never made a rough estimation in a casual conversation? Do you carry a calculator everywhere you go in case you get asked "how many beers it takes for you to get drunk" or similar casual conversations?? Do you answer every question with decimal figures? How about this... how stupid would you think someone looks if you said it takes 6 beers to get you drunk and some moron blows up at you and insists you're wrong, that 5.4 beers will get you drunk and then goes on to proclaim that you don't know what you're talking about? Then this idiot starts arguing with you so long and pointlessly that you completely lose focus of the original discussion and end up at some stupid dead-end conversation. Are you following me here???
Anyway, I did make valid arguements in every post I put up, despite your attempts to deny it. I did make them in a cynical fashion, but nonetheless they do illustrate how FLAWED and moreover insignificant your arguements are. Honestly, who gives a flying fucck if 90% are BMWs or 60% or hell, even 20%? That is still a majority, and that is the basic point I'm getting across. You are just making stupid posts that do not contribute anything to the discussion. Maybe if I carried a spreadsheet in my car and tallied off every time I was involved in a near-accident situation and noted the car manufacturer every time, I'd satisfy your thirst for truly useless details.
I hope you finally realize just how laughable your whole arguement sounds, and cut your losses here.
So am I to believe you've never made a rough estimation in a casual conversation? Do you carry a calculator everywhere you go in case you get asked "how many beers it takes for you to get drunk" or similar casual conversations?? Do you answer every question with decimal figures? How about this... how stupid would you think someone looks if you said it takes 6 beers to get you drunk and some moron blows up at you and insists you're wrong, that 5.4 beers will get you drunk and then goes on to proclaim that you don't know what you're talking about? Then this idiot starts arguing with you so long and pointlessly that you completely lose focus of the original discussion and end up at some stupid dead-end conversation. Are you following me here???
Anyway, I did make valid arguements in every post I put up, despite your attempts to deny it. I did make them in a cynical fashion, but nonetheless they do illustrate how FLAWED and moreover insignificant your arguements are. Honestly, who gives a flying fucck if 90% are BMWs or 60% or hell, even 20%? That is still a majority, and that is the basic point I'm getting across. You are just making stupid posts that do not contribute anything to the discussion. Maybe if I carried a spreadsheet in my car and tallied off every time I was involved in a near-accident situation and noted the car manufacturer every time, I'd satisfy your thirst for truly useless details.
I hope you finally realize just how laughable your whole arguement sounds, and cut your losses here.
