Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message ups.com... Keenan & Julie wrote: Why don't you look them up? Figured folks like you who know so much would know at least this much. I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction. I don't know why they were there. So why make it an issue of why I was there, and under what circumstances? One poster in this NG even wanted to know what I was doing out at night! I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid. Unless you think they deliberately tried not to see you, it is irrelevant. They didn't see you. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible. Do you not see your constant circular reasoning? My statement is not an example of circular reasoning. You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to hit you. Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt to do so. Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not see you. Predictable is not the same as safer. You bet your accuary degree it is! What do you think the insurance industry gambles on? For that matter, how do you think casinos make their money? It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical. Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help you come out a winner, knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make them safer to travel. Your case only attests to the fact that there was one incident where you browned your shorts. No, reddened my shirt is what happened. But your mentality speaks to why you paddle in circles. yawn They might. You seem to have an irritating quality. Sure -- you chase your own tail and blame me for your dizziness! yawn I think you should take this to future president Hillary Clinton, that's in her jurisdiction, isn't it? Oh, sorry, thought this was rec.boats.paddle, not alt.whatever. I'll continue learning this sport, no thanks to you, but my advice to you is to take a course in Symbolic Logic I before the next Presidential elections. Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Keenan & Julie wrote: I live in Canada. As such, I am not well versed in the rules governing police boats in New York. Since you actually use those waters, it would make sense for you to find out what the rules are for that jurisdiction. Wow, funny that after all the other advice you have for me, you're so shy and humble over the one point which matters, that I'd originally asked about! I'm not everyone on this NG. I didn't have a meeting or talk to anyone else here before responding to you. Try to focus, you are sounding paranoid. I didn't say you were "everyone." Get rid of the water in your ears. My statement is not an example of circular reasoning. And here we have yet another example of your fine reasoning processes: conclusion by fiat. You have no evidence whatsoever that the police made a deliberate attempt to hit you. This was never an issue. Why do you insist on making it one? Nor have you suggested any plausible reason why they would attempt to do so. Never an issue. Are you going to go on about WMDs next? Thus, all logic points to the probability that they simply did not see you. Never an issue, said issue remaining being whether it makes any sense to leave the middle of the river open for motorized traffic if said motorized traffic will still just race up the shoreline anyway. It is decidely not the same. This is illogical. Very illogical. Sigh...like I said, go talk to your insurance company. Just as knowing that the odds are against you at the casino does not help you come out a winner, No ****, Sherlock -- knowing the odds are against you "helps" you come out a loser! Knowing the odds are with you helps you come out a winner. You're mixing up odds for and against with what predicatability/probability means vis-a-vis safety. knowing that the roads are dangerous does not make them safer to travel. Knowing something's safer means knowing the odds FOR; knowing something's more dangerous means knowing the odds AGAINST. But knowing the odds for OR against is better -- because it makes for more informed decision-making -- and thus safer, than not knowing. Hence the relationship between safety and predicatability. Hell's bells, but you really do have a screw loose up there. And I say that not with malice, only exhaustion. yawn Sorry to have woken you up. yawn But don't forget your pills! Take a look at what you have written here and give some thought as to whether or not you are in a position to hand out advice of this nature. OMG!!! It's just like straight out of the Bible: guy walks up to Jesus and asks, Teacher, why doesn't God just show Himself? And Christ looks him straight in the eye and says that even if He did, folks still wouldn't believe in Him. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Eagle Depth Finder Transducer Problems | General | |||
sea eagle SR 12.6 mini-review | General |