I crash into religion

jtaylor wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message
...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:
I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
know-it-alls. Sorry.


Weak, weak weak. When asked a question with an uncomfortable answer
you retreat behind excuses about the person asking it.

I played your little game with a contrived scenario and now you
can't play mine? Your scenario even containted elements of
unreality, whereas mine is entirely possible. And you still can't
answer truthfully. That shows a lot about your "thinking."

John,

I do not want to give you the satisfaction of answering your
question.


Why not - if the answer is "No.", then you have shown yourself to be a
consistent, if ignorant, helmet-wearer.

Sweet-talker.

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Sorni
') wrote:

wrote:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Why would my helmet be unavailable?

Because you'd fallen and broken it?

Put it differently. You are riding along and fall. Your helmet lands
in a cow **** (or dog ****, or bear ****) and gets covered in it, but
fortunately protects your head from getting similarly dirty. The
helmet does not appear to be damaged. There's a stream (or creek, or
water trough) a mile away.

Do you

(i) Abandon the stinking thing and ride home
(ii) Hang it on your handlebars and ride to the water to clean it
(iii) Walk to the water to clean it
(iv) Put it back on your head and ride on?

If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would
you still use it?

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

And the ridiculous extent to which ideologues will go to prove (not)
ridiculous points.

jtaylor wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Sorni wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you
still ride?

I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
know-it-alls. Sorry.

Let's _all_ ask!

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Why would my helmet be unavailable?

I'm sure many of us will get the same rude label. But perhaps
_someone_ can get him to actually answer a simple question


Again:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Depends. Happy?

On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:25 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

jtaylor wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Sorni wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you
still ride?

I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
know-it-alls. Sorry.

Let's _all_ ask!

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Why would my helmet be unavailable?

I'm sure many of us will get the same rude label. But perhaps
_someone_ can get him to actually answer a simple question


Again:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Depends.

What a coward you are.

JT


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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:25 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

jtaylor wrote:

Again:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

Depends.

What a coward you are.

Said the guy who wouldn't answer MY simple question with a yes or no, but
kept putting qualifiers on it.

Give it a freaking rest already.

(And BTW, the answer DOES depend on a lot of things.)

wrote:
Sorni wrote:

If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would you
still use it?

If _some_ studies said it didn't, I'd probably get curious and actually
read the studies. (I do read, you see.) If I found that the "it
doesn't work" studies were very robust and free of obvious error, while
the "it works" studies were obviously very faulty, I'd stop wearing it.

True story, BTW.

The interesting thing here is the use of the word "knew". If you
continue to "know" something is true in the face of convincing evidence
to the contrary then that is the kind of "knowledge" that comes from
faith rather than reasoning.

--
Dave...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Sorni
') wrote:

wrote:

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?



And the ridiculous extent to which ideologues will go to prove (not)
ridiculous points.



Rather the ridiculous lengths to which you will go in order to avoid
answering simple questions:

a) Is helmet wearing one of those simple decisions for which you have
decided you don't need data?

b) If you always wear a helmet for its (putative) protective value while
cycling, why don't you also do so while walking or driving in a motorcar?

c) If for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a nice place to
ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still ride?

Sorni wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Do you

(i) Abandon the stinking thing and ride home
(ii) Hang it on your handlebars and ride to the water to clean it
(iii) Walk to the water to clean it
(iv) Put it back on your head and ride on?

If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would
you still use it?

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

And the ridiculous extent to which ideologues will go to prove (not)
ridiculous points.

Anything but answer the question...

--
Dave....

dkahn400 wrote:

Anything but answer the question...


This sub-thread remind me of that time on Newsnight when Paxman was
trying to get a straight answer out of that politico.

Translation for Leftpondians:
There is a nightly current affairs program on BBC2 called "Newsnight".
Jeremy Paxman was interviewing some political figure and was wanting an
answer to a question. The evasion went on for ages with JP just asking
the same question over & over again and getting nothing but evasive
answers. I can't remember the political figure, the question, or any of
the responses. I have no doubt that someone will be able to provide them.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

Don Whybrow wrote:
Translation for Leftpondians:
There is a nightly current affairs program on BBC2 called
"Newsnight". Jeremy Paxman was interviewing some political
figure and was wanting an answer to a question. The evasion
went on for ages with JP just asking the same question over &
over again and getting nothing but evasive answers. I can't
remember the political figure, the question, or any of the
responses. I have no doubt that someone will be able to
provide them.

Watch the video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...25/4182569.stm

--
Cheers
the.Mark