Re: speeding

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:22:26 +0100, Ian Dalziel
<iandalziel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:44:37 GMT, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:17:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
<iandalziel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:44:44 GMT, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I repeat, then - the whole topic of excessive speed differential was
one you introduced, which I considered irrelevant and therefore a
diversion and a strawman with regard to the original discussion.

Surely excessive speed differential is *extremely* relevant to this
discussion and I'll be interested to hear you explain how it isn't.
Oh, the fact that *I* brought it up isn't a good reason for declaring
it irrelevant.

Speed differential is very relevant to deciding what is a safe speed
for the conditions. The reason it was irrelevant was that you brought
it up as an objection to exceeding speed limits *at all* - no-one but
you was suggesting travelling at a constant speed with no reference to
the road or traffic.

Hi Ian. I see you're again just picking the bits that you feel you can
respond to and ignoring the rest of my post. This includes not even
acknowledging the mountain of evidence I posted WRT the generally used
definition of speeding. Allow me to extend you the same courtesy.


You have already admitted that the word is used with two distinct
meanings.

Sure, I have acknowledged that there are at least two reasonably
distinct interpretations, depending on context (as of course most
distinctions in interpretation depend on context). What I've *always*
said that in the context of the police, the adverts, the cameras and
latterly, the official HO document I presented, and the general usage
in the press, "speeding", refers to exceeding the speed limit and
rarely if ever is there any confusion as to what it refers to. I
offered evidence for this, which you snipped away.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: speeding
    ... the fact that *I* brought it up isn't a good reason for declaring ... distinct interpretations, depending on context (as of course most ... distinctions in interpretation depend on context). ... rarely if ever is there any confusion as to what it refers to. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: speeding
    ... the fact that *I* brought it up isn't a good reason for declaring ... distinct interpretations, depending on context (as of course most ... distinctions in interpretation depend on context). ... rarely if ever is there any confusion as to what it refers to. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... people reason well in non-mathematical contexts." ... I took into account the context, and none of your discussion of the ... rather only that they do not have a talent for formal logic. ... don't have an APTITUDE for symbolic logic. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: OT: Lets Take the Religion out of Christmas
    ... >> meaning if it requires arithmetic but cant use such arithmetic. ... and that is what non-provable means in this context. ... then there is no "reason" for the statement. ... > Your invocation of the incompleteness theorem is typical of many ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: 50 years later, Marvin Minsky still doesnt get it
    ... And for some reason which I can't grasp, you seem to think this is ... The result is that the associations developed over experience answer the ... the knowledge updates that need to happen are not evenly ... the most likely knowledge updates needed for any new context. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
Loading