DEZERTSUB
Straw Man

Just read your post about litigation fears.

Did you know that many park ride trains are now shut down due to insurance costs being prohibitive?

Here's a neat one in Safford, idled by such:

http://www.arizonaandpacificrr.com/s...discovery.html

Certainly they shouldn't have been where they were, no more so than the ESPN cameraman killed at Barstow several years back.

I wonder how that was resolved: did Walker Evans Enterprises and Toyota Motor Company, etc., as well as SCORE face claims, or would that have been covered under some worker's comp process?

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply, Donny. I don't what to say offhand, but, "I am what I am." I don't race anymore, nor plan to, so I can say what I think without worrying about a ride or sponsorship or popularity.

Most dogs and folks that meet me, like me, I usually don't like the ones that don't. C'est la vie.

I figure if I can get even just one racer, or future racer, to think about the possible consequences of their actions, and act accordingly, it will be worth whatever flack I take.

When I was racing, in a V-8 unlimited car, I never flew over jumps like the Anthill where I couldn't see the landing; still, I won races and ran at 50+ MPH averages, and would have been faster if we had a bigger budget (I was always sweating the tranny).

Here's a question I thought of a little while ago:

If the spectators are solely to blame, how come the earlier vehicles didn't hit them?

If one posts an illogical statement, one has posted illogically, whether I call one on it or not.

If one thinks logic is foolish, I would think one a fool.

I don't really think you are a fool, Donny, though we often disagree politically.

Earlier in this MDR thread you supported me, now you appear to have changed your position.

Appears to be rather "turncoat", what caused you to do that?

Am I giving you too much grief in Purple?

What gives?

Hey, Donnie! Since you were so effective at getting Carlos to reopen the thread, will you please see if you can convince Shaggy to return to Purple.

I miss his posts and perspectives.

Thanks in advance!

Part IV:

You wrote:

"You totally cherry picked his post and found the one part you could nitpick and make Carlos look stoopid, because he couldn't provide your 'scientific data' (disagree with me all you want DD, what you asked for was scientific) and after that you tried your best to discount his position because he couldn't provide you with what you knew he couldn't provide."

Again, your assessment, not backed by logic or reason, but instead by your emotional state and misinterpretation. It was not "scientific," but mathmatic. BTW: "biased" is not a synonym for "stoopid."

"Stop being such a d**k. (some) People here like you, but stop being such a ball-buster for no reason."

Duck? You're the quack, you can't even come up with a correct diagnosis (reason) for my position.

Part III:

You wrote:

"DD, this right here (IMO) is what bothers people."

I am not responsible for your, or others', emotional reactions. We are each individually responsible for our own emotions.


"You guys were going back and forth, ...and when he interjects with his opinion...you totally get off the subject of sequestration and ask him to provide specifics that you know he can't present. Iinstead of just agreeing with him, (again, I'm sure you do agree with him that most gov't employees are overpaid for their intellignece levels....Oh, and you kind of admitted YOU DO agree, because you said unless he has a degree in the field, he's not qualified even if he has an IQ of 160), you went off and got all, well, scientific!!"

No, I do not agree with someone that has gone on to state he can learn everything he needs to know via Rush. Nor does my stating one of the requirements to be a SW show my support for his position.

(cont)

Part II:
You wrote, or quoted:

On the VM you left me, as follows:
BF bailed, my reply:

DS: It's not a scientific experiment...

NBD: Here you present another classic Straw Man. I never said anything about a scientific experiment.

You're right, you did not specifially say anything about a "scientific experiment".

I knew that.

However, when Carlos simply states that "some people I see are half as smart making twice as much.." (not exact quote) you demanded that he provide you with data that could be analyized and interpreted...

I demanded nothing, I asked a question. You've just presented another Straw Man.

Once again Daryl, your obvious intelligence is diminished by the positions you imply that others are taking...

You present yet another Straw Man here, Donny. You inferred incorrectly, I implied nothing of the sort. I'm truly disappointed, I'd thought you were coming along with your logic.

You wrote:

I asked Carlos to re-open the thread,

Thanks for doing so.

so I could take you to task for telling me I presented another straw man...but it wasn't a straw man.

Was too!

The first time you asked Carlos for a percentage of gov't employees...YOU presented a straw man!!!

Did not.

Carlos DID say..."SOME of the gov't employees I have observed" (or something to that effect.) YOU, DARYL, presented a straw man argument because.....
A. You are well aware ...
B. You asked Carlos to provide you with a percentage...
C. By doing so, you've created a STRAW MAN position...

I don't believe I did: I made an observation, then asked a question, providing info that Carlos could use to answer that question, then I asked questions as to how he had made his determination as to comparative intelligence.


(continued next VM)

Done...