inane Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 It's never clear what you mean. All I see is rhetoric. I think I know what I am talking about when it comes to traffic safety and intersection design thank you very much. I state safety principals. You respond with rhetoric. You get faced by facts and then you say things like this. Like, what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Why cause you're an Engineer? I provide endless amounts of evidence backing up my positions and you provide nothing but your stories and I'm the one with rhetoric? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Your entire post is based on assumptions. As I've asked before, why wouldn't you ask me what I mean rather than assume and then insult me based on your assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Lets get this thread back on track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Seems "our streets" was a defining term. Did you mean "our streets" in New York, California, Arizona or perhaps England, Germany, France???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 I'm quite sure you don't care to know what I actually meant, you'd just rather remain ignorant so you can fit me in your preconceived little box. And as usual you ignore the point to take cheap shots. Whatever makes you happy I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Lets get this thread back on track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 No surprise here to anyone who listened to Clark when she had her talk radio show on CKNW. She didn't agree with the cell phone law. She thinks people should be allowed to talk on their phones while driving even though law enforcement says its a bad idea. She is the epitome of do as I say, not as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 What's the difference between talking on the phone, talking on a hands free device and talking to your passenger. NOTHING, they're all distracting except with one you have only one hand on the wheel. YET, at the same time I can talk to my passenger while smoking, having had my arm amputated, eating, changing the radio and so on. Which are all legal. This is by far the most dumbest and inconsistent law I have ever heard of. Only oafs support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 It seems that you seldom know what you actually mean yourself. This has been observed by others as well: /topic/343918-bc-premier-christy-clark-slammed-for-running-a-red-light/page__st__60#entry11351277">http://forum.canucks...0#entry11351277 What you posted here as to traffic fatalities seems quite obvious as to your meaning... and it was obviously quite wrong. It is not a cheap shot to destroy a poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument - the sort that you post with regularity. Make better arguments and this might happen less frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 The best way to change a law is for everyone to break it. Why do you suppose they all show up at the art gallery to smoke up in mass? Should we be sending the cops in to crack down on that too? People smoking pot don't pose the safety risk that motorists do. Not condoning it, but putting things into perspective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 It seems that you seldom know what you actually mean yourself. This has been observed by others as well: /topic/343918-bc-premier-christy-clark-slammed-for-running-a-red-light/page__st__60#entry11351277">http://forum.canucks...0#entry11351277 What you posted here as to traffic fatalities seems quite obvious as to your meaning... and it was obviously quite wrong. It is not a cheap shot to destroy a poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument - the sort that you post with regularity. Make better arguments and this might happen less frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 People smoking pot don't pose the safety risk that motorists do. Not condoning it, but putting things into perspective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Again, you don't care to know what I meant, or even talk about the issue. You just want to troll me. I pity you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 People smoking pot don't pose the safety risk that motorists do. Not condoning it, but putting things into perspective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Your meaning was clear - you got caught out and now you are twisting and turning while trying to deflect from the baseless nature of your claim. You posted: No, people just die by the thousands on our streets. As I said: Seems "our streets" was a defining term. Did you mean "our streets" in New York, California, Arizona or perhaps England, Germany, France???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 I must have been the only one to read "Canadian" where it said "our". Or maybe it's because I'm not trying to reduce every post to an insult, no matter how strained it is. It's a cheap shot to "destroy" a poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument when you misrepresent it to do so. Which you do with more regularity than Clark runs red lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Caught? You don't know where I was talking about or what timeframe I was talking about. You didn't ask for clarification, you must mock and insult. You don't want to actually discuss the issue, you're just trolling me. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Since different provinces have different laws as to cell phone use and distracted driving, employing the term "our streets" is irrelevant to this discussion. And no it is not "a cheap shot to "destroy" a poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument" - in fact it is precisely what is permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 Hilarious. Your poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument remains a a poorly reasoned, unsupported and badly constructed argument despite all your histrionics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.