Even sillier than you usually manage. The difference is that when
you are talking to someone sitting next to you, that other person
will usually have enough of a clue to stop talking when they see
that you are about to run into something or run a little kid over etc.
So isnt exactly the same at all.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:09:54 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
The difference between you and me is that you seem to trust your intuition
more than you do facts, whereas I clearly trust facts more so than I trust
my intuition. (Myers-Briggs stuff)
I quoted a fact from a published paper (albeit, all papers have to be
properly *parsed*, because science is all about the details - and in vitro
science is particularly dangerous due to the potential to mis-parse the
I also quoted a fact from the NHTSA statistical report.
My opinion comes directly from *those* facts.
Where'd you get your opinion from?
HINT: Without a reputable cite, please do not respond because we know the
answer already anyway. So respond only after you dig up a cite that supports
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:53:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as
a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.
So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the
"industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their
effects for news-worthy reasons.
For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to
artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging
Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million
gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel
(in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."
Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?
Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a
not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be
absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of
''a high-octane'' gasoline.
I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a
high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not
In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the
scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for
similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch
Trials, and cellphone related distractions.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:16:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I agree with you, as I've seen that "intensification" of scare value all
over the place, and not only with respect to cellphone-related accidents.
Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially teh
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.
Is that intuition correct?
If so, then I'd intuit that kerosene (all types listed above) would likely
be a bit *less* scary as an accelerant for arson purposes than would
I'm not sure what to look up to confirm that intuitive assumption (and the
Google Police would duly note that I made that search, I'm sure), so I
wonder out loud here these two somewhat related musings:
Q1: Is kerosene & diesel fuel & jet fuel the same when it comes to starting
Q2: Is kerosene/dieselfuel/jetfuel less (what's the adjective?) for burning
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Your example is PERFECT!
What you just displayed was a sophism (aka, a false argument, often by way
Sophisms abound when people on this ng try to "explain" away the fact there
are no accidents.
Most people here can't "parse" a scientific statistic properly, so they fall
prey to the sophists who are (apparently) trying to "intensify" the scare
With respect to the three high-octane quotes, for a reader to correctly
ascertain both the true and intended meaning of the 3 examples, I wonder if
the process they must employ is that they must:
a. Parse the sentence so as to actively focus on the "high octane" modifier;
b. Consciously realize that the modifier was artificially inserted;
c. Ascertain the reason was to falsely "intensify" the danger;
d. Recognize that this false intensification of danger is a "sophism";
e. Resulting in the reader not being overly alarmed (wrt normal gasoline).
Does that five-step process hold water with the group as the basic process
that must be followed in order for the reader to "properly" understand the
given 3 examples?
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
I don't know. But according to Exxon, in "About octane ratings", see
<https://www.exxon.com/en/octane-rating , "Octane rating is a measure of a
fuel's ability to resist 'knock'. ... The higher the octane number the
greater the fuel's resistance to knocking or pinging during combustion."
'Zat help? Cheers (and YvW), -- tlvp
That doesn't tell much, because it resists pinging by changing the way
it ignites, especially under pressure. Kind of like an adjustment of
the attack portion of an ASDR envelope waveform. As a freely vaporizing
fluid I think the overall energy released is nearly the same no matter
the octane or cetane rating.
Corse they do when someone fills a container with high octane gasoline.
Sure, but the high octane bit is just more detail,
not meant to imply that that makes it worse.
Its not exactly the same, but clearly it makes no useful difference
if you are using to set fire to a house.
House just one house away from mine was burnt out that way
just a few months ago now, by a loony. Fortunately the owners
were away at the time.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:07 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
The 3 high-octane authors used sophistry to falsely make the reader feel a
greater danger than actually existed:
a. The authors realized their audience wouldn't parse properly;
b. Therefore, the authors artificially inserted the false modifier;
c. Their intent was to intensify the danger perceived by the reader;
d. Where the non-parsing reader would fail to identify the sophism;
e. Therefore perceiving greater danger than truthfully existed.
My point is that we must be on guard for both the "intensification" and the
"sophistry" in similar cellphone scares, just as we should have been on
guard during the McCarthy Era and the Salem Witch Trials.
Mass hysteria is powerful, and my argument is that this is why people
"perceive" such a huge danger from cellphones, when, in fact, the danger is
non existent (as proven by the very real and valid overall accident record).
No such animal and none of the authors you cited are anything special author
Nope, used an extra adjective when describing a particular fuel.
The didn’t do that either.
There is no parsing what so ever involved in what they wrote.
It isnt a modifier and it isnt false either, at most not necessary.
There actual intention was to have more than the most mundane description.
There is no parsing involved and there is no sophism involved either.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
You never had a point and there was no "intensification" involved either.
There is none of that involved either.
What there actually is with cellphone use while driving is the FACT
that doing that distracts the driver more than not doing that does.
Same with eating while driving, etc etc etc too, particularly when
it is something that you have to keep in your hand like a burger etc.
Nothing like in fact.
Who is doing "intensification" now ? You are, that's who.
Who is doing "intensification" with that use of the word HUGE now ? You
are, that's who.
Another example is when reporters describe an ongoing 40 MPH "High
Speed Chase" and give a 'play by play' of the action describing close
calls of sideswiping or crashing when the viewer can plainly see the
'high speed' was reduced to around five MPH as the perpetrator
navigated around slower or outright stopped vehicles.
I call it 'sensationalism' as do many others. I think they go to school
to learn how to do this. I've also noticed a trend recently toward
starting a newscast with >>>BREAKING NEWS<<<< about yesterday's
accident which they still have no further information about.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:23:45 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
Yup. And when the police shoot an unarmed man "in the torso", which means,
"in the back".
Or when Commissioner Davis hailed as a "ferocious firefight" the "gun
battle" with an unarmed, unresisting, and prostrate Boston bomber, hiding i
the hull of a boat.
Or, when Governor Cuomo haled what amounts to a cowardly sniper as a "hero"
so as to take public scrutiny away from the fact that the officer committed
what amounts to a criminal act of sniping.
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été v?
?rifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.