Next car? Faster and Cheaper?
in [Tuning]
|
From: Douglas Payne on 12 Jul 2010 18:34 JackH wrote: > On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >> JackH wrote: >>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some >>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework >>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. >> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating >> opinion as fact? > > Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world > today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of > opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form > opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real > knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda > drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be > true'. Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK this time. -- Douglas
From: Douglas Payne on 12 Jul 2010 18:39 Douglas Payne wrote: > JackH wrote: >> On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >>> JackH wrote: >>>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some >>>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework >>>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. >>> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating >>> opinion as fact? >> >> Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world >> today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of >> opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form >> opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real >> knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda >> drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be >> true'. > > Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK > this time. Ha ha, of course, it's too late for you and me. -- Douglas
From: JackH on 12 Jul 2010 18:43 On Jul 12, 11:34 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: > JackH wrote: > > On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: > >> JackH wrote: > >>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some > >>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework > >>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. > >> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating > >> opinion as fact? > > > Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world > > today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of > > opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form > > opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real > > knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda > > drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be > > true'. > > Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK > this time. And the reasoning for telling them not to do it, unless I'm mistaken, then eventually led to your earth shattering, if not entirely proven to be correct, statistical 'anal-ysis' on the ratio of those with to those without in terms of the chances 'one will get oneself into a bit of a pickle'... or something. -- JackH
From: Douglas Payne on 12 Jul 2010 18:59 JackH wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:34 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >> JackH wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >>>> JackH wrote: >>>>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some >>>>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework >>>>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. >>>> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating >>>> opinion as fact? >>> Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world >>> today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of >>> opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form >>> opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real >>> knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda >>> drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be >>> true'. >> Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK >> this time. > > And the reasoning for telling them not to do it, unless I'm mistaken, > then eventually led to your earth shattering, if not entirely proven > to be correct, statistical 'anal-ysis' on the ratio of those with to > those without in terms of the chances 'one will get oneself into a bit > of a pickle'... or something. Yes. Otherwise insurance would be cheaper with a re-map. -- Douglas
From: JackH on 12 Jul 2010 19:20
On Jul 12, 11:59 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: > JackH wrote: > > On Jul 12, 11:34 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: > >> JackH wrote: > >>> On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: > >>>> JackH wrote: > >>>>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some > >>>>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework > >>>>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. > >>>> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating > >>>> opinion as fact? > >>> Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world > >>> today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of > >>> opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form > >>> opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real > >>> knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda > >>> drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be > >>> true'. > >> Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK > >> this time. > > > And the reasoning for telling them not to do it, unless I'm mistaken, > > then eventually led to your earth shattering, if not entirely proven > > to be correct, statistical 'anal-ysis' on the ratio of those with to > > those without in terms of the chances 'one will get oneself into a bit > > of a pickle'... or something. > > Yes. So aside from the fact your stats were built on a foundation of 'figures drawn from thin air'... and were therefore a 'load of unsubstantiated bollocks'... > Otherwise insurance would be cheaper with a re-map. As I've pointed out several times, (and getting to the original point), we've not really seen reports of bods being prosecuted on the strength of driving uninsured due to an undeclared map - I'd be more than happy to look at any links you can provide to the contrary and I've outlined elsewhere why I believe we'd be seeing reports this nature if it was happening. -- JackH |