XPost: nyc.transit, nyc.politics, nyc.general
From: ob110ob@att.net
On 28 May 2004 16:14:51 -0400, tls@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>In article <854fb0pp49krt5pub10idhlg9vn01aho80@4ax.com>,
>Obwon wrote:
>>On 27 May 2004 23:27:09 -0400, tls@panix.com (Thor
>>Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <57ecb0pn2b0opq8r2064386tb7kidt6hv7@4ax.com>,
>>>Obwon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But that's because they can't look at the data where
>>>>the owner of the car was summoned by the alarm and the
>>>>theft was therefore prevented! Or do they have that
>>>>data too?
>>>
>>>How dumb are you? Do you really think that insurers only insure
>>>cars that are stolen?
>>
>> And you're smart for thinking that only insured cars
>>get stolen?
>
>Given that only a trivial understanding of statistics and a quick
>glance at the data are required, I'd say no. No, you don't have to
>be particularly smart to understand why it is reasonable to use
>insurance data for this purpose.
>
>On the other hand, you really do have to be droolingly, ponderously
>stupid to think that knowing which cars in a given sample _were_
>stolen doesn't tell you which ones _weren't_.
Then you admit to being droolingly, ponderously
stupid then? Very good way to proceed while debating
weather on not a new law is needed to prohibit an
ineffective product. Lot's of wasted, expensive City
Council time to debate and forge a consensus on banning
a product that consumers agree is ineffective. Boy,
what geniuses we be, huh?
We had a jumbo jet go over the area so low that it
rattled the windows, while last year it would have set
off quite a number of car alarms, this time it didn't
set off even one. But yes, by all means, stick to
analysing the insurance statistics to show that a bill
is desperately needed to prohibit an obsolete product
that people have already stopped purchasing.
G'Day matey!
Obwon
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
