Canada can't save you

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
feh rip would post just to antagonize people here.
He never even stated a opinion except what would be flamebait and never actually tried to discuss anything.
He would be gone for a few days get upset at what someone would say and dump P&N with endless flamebait threads.
The conservative posters here must be desperate to back him up he NEVER contributed any insight into any of your causes.
Just there to be the center of negative attention IMO. So long to another spammer and a failure of a troll.
(Now can we please have some real debate this place has become a major yawn)

I was pretty much staying out of the Rip issue, but this begs reply. I think everyone here has a right to post their favorite issue facet and even disagree moderately with the personal attack prohibitions, although they seem to seldom be enforced. I have read his posts and yours. The only difference (based on what you are saying) is that you are polar opposites. He posts differently, but you are just as emphatic about your extreme. I still remember the Red/Blue paranoia you were posting and I always know what you are going to post before I read it. Talk about a major yawn! I don't read much of what Rip posts either if that makes you feel a little better. Agree or disagree, he did post a lot of subject matter and it was usually backed with some sort published material. I thought he always commented on his postings as well. If this is the censorship P&N mods are enforcing, policy with little or no guidance, it is wrong. I've looked for established and published rules concerning the reason he was vacationed and have found none that applied. If the other members didn't appreciate his postings, they wouldn't have kept his threads going. I think some of his postings attracted others to the forum. I don't see a real problem with his two-week vacation, but to keep slamming him when he can't respond is pretty low. If the mods used lack of comment as an excuse to vacation him for his subject matter, that is really bad news for a supposedly democratic political forum. I hope that isn't the case.

I expect to see more "rules" like this in the future so the mods can get rid of those posters they dont agree with. Given that the mods have completely ignored my valid questions about this new rule and its enforcement, I guess this is just more BS selective informcement from the mods.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: OffTopic
It is not a law to drive with lights on durring the day time, however most people have their lights on for safety reason.

Daytime Running Light - An Extra Margin of Safety

They don't have them on for safety. They have them on because it was cost-convenient for the car mfrs.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=163,197&sid=197&article=3367

http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.

Because DRLs negatively effect other motorists, versus the owner of a DRL equipped vehicle, they should be omitted from all new cars by government mandate. Vehicles already equipped with DRLs should be recalled and the DRLs disconnected. Furthermore, all states should explore legislation that limits daytime headlight use to low beam or parking lights. The government, in concert with various corporate interests has sold the driving public a bill of goods that doesn't live up to its advertised claims. It seems only fair that the government and the same corporate interests undo the damage they have done.

To quote from some other poster: Wow, just wow!

 

[conjur]

heh...no kidding.

And I've seen plenty of cars with no illuminated taillights as the headlights come on and people think the lights are on. Come dusk/dark, they don't think to turn the headlight switch on. Why should they? The headlights are on!

I was guilty of that once, myself, in a rental car (Toyota Corolla.)

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur
heh...no kidding.

And I've seen plenty of cars with no illuminated taillights as the headlights come on and people think the lights are on. Come dusk/dark, they don't think to turn the headlight switch on. Why should they? The headlights are on!

I was guilty of that once, myself, in a rental car (Toyota Corolla.)

Both of our vehicles have automatic lights. Always tricky during daylight to figure out if they are off or on. This state has a law that requires using headlights during rain. I'm always having to manually turn them on for rain and then I forget to turn them off and sit there trying to figure out why the beeping when I open the door to get out. I'm glad of the warning though as it probably saves me from leaving them on.

 

[conjur]

Yeah...I tend to use mine a lot. Got in the habit of doing it and it's stuck. That "light on" beeping has come in handy, and so does the mechanism that won't let me lock the doors if the keys are in the ignition.

 

[imported_Condor]

Actually, I kind of like the lights on during the day, but always on doesn't respond to fog conditions down here and we have a lot of fog (no cracks please) and headlights blind the driver in fog. I do like to jab the Canadians with them though! Breakfast is served - later.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute.

This statement is either a lie or the author is ignorant. Curiously the Highway Loss Data Institute is affiliated with the Institute for Highway Safety . . . yet the IIHS clearly ENDORSES the continued use of DRLs. Their shared website makes no mention of the first, last, and only large scale study.

DRL advocate

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive.

excellent summary from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

4. How effective are DRLs? Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States.

I think mods should VIGOROUSLY enforce a policy of cut and paste bandits since many appear to provide sketchy information.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Condor I don't see a real problem with his two-week vacation, but to keep slamming him when he can't respond is pretty low.

He'd just insinuate that we were Gay, Liberal or on Meth like he did in this thread Text

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor I don't see a real problem with his two-week vacation, but to keep slamming him when he can't respond is pretty low.

He'd just insinuate that we were Gay, Liberal or on Meth like he did in this thread Text

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think it is funny certain people are fixated on this guy.

Something you want to tell us?

Red Dawn is from San Francisco, isn't he?

LMAO!

 

[conjur]

BabyBaliDoc? Notice that copyright at your article?

©1996-2004, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute | Copyright and Use of Images Notice
Last modified: 10-Mar-2004

http://www.lightsout.org/DRL7_remarks.html

NHTSA's preliminary assessment shows no improvement for DRL equipped vehicles in preventing fatalities in two vehicle crashes. Repeat, no improvement. This is from the fairly comprehensive FARS database. While not statistically significant, the Odds Ratio technique shows a net decrease in effectiveness for two vehicle fatal collisions.

Also, note the IIHS's study focuses on benefits in countries in more northern lattitudes (areas where DRLs would have a more pronouncable affect)

 

[desy]

Based on studies in Scandinavia and CanadaGM disagrees
DRL save about 7% head-on daytime collisions a yr
and the IIHS Mkay?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Rip's contributions are marginal. In fact, the only value in this particular thread was relating how partisans invariably distort statistics (ie IVCS) to match an agenda. As for John Leo's piece being humor . . . I agree . . . he's a joke.

Michael, you are from Canada, right? Despite growing up in the US, I'm a master at geography. Canada has 11 provinces and the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory. . . both of which have governments that are largely equivalent to other rural provinces. Nunavut was granted it's status in 1999, so you shouldn't feel too bad about not knowing. In essence, Canada has 13 provinces.

In the US, we say we have 50 states but in fact four of those "states" are formally known as commonwealths: PA, MA, KY, and VA. We have other commonwealths such as Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas that are not states.

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are.

You should really know better than challenging me. Sadly, I appear to be better versed in the geopolitical makeup of Canada than you are. Granted, I give you a lot more credence than John Leo . . . but that's a low bar.

I may not always get the facts right but my mistakes are honest. I'm sure you made an honest mistake in your critique of my Canadian provincial counting skills. Now feel free to challenge the total of "8" formally approving gay marriages. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the source . . . so maybe I'm wrong.

pssst, 10 Provinces, 3 Territories:

Provinces:

1) British Columbia
2) Alberta
3) Saskachtewan(sp)
4) Manitoba
5) Ontario
6) Quebec
7) New Brunswick
8) Nova Scotia
9) Prince Edward Island
10) Newfoundland and Labrador

Territoies:

1) Yukon Territory
2) Northwest Territories
3) Nunavut

 

[Michael]

BBD,

Nunavut was granted new status as a TERRITORY in 1999. It split off from the Northwest Territories. There are 10 provinces and 3 territories. Do you have anything else to teach me, o master of Canadian geography?

Note that I didn't say I disagreed with most of the points you were making, just that it is hard to take anyone seriously who is commenting on Canada and can't get the number of provinces right.

Michael

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm a master at geography

Hilarious.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
I expect to see more "rules" like this in the future so the mods can get rid of those posters they dont agree with. Given that the mods have completely ignored my valid questions about this new rule and its enforcement, I guess this is just more BS selective informcement from the mods.

Eeeew, sounds like a Shiner II ^^^

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Michael
BBD,

"8 of 13 provinces"

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are. As for the article itself, seemed to be a humour piece to me.

Taxes and opportunity attracted me from Canada to the USA and I have a much better opinion of the Canadian medical system than most conservative posters. However, it does work better because of the USA being right next door.

Anandtech Moderators,

You banned Riprorin for a thread that has generated a ton of responses and discussion? where he came in later and responded to a few of the original responses showing it wasn't just a post and run thread? Makes zero sense to me.

Michael

he's gotten multiple warnings in the past few days alone. look at some of his recent threads.

And yet there are many other thread that are similar to his that go untouched. charrison linked to one such thread. There are others. I found 5 in a quick 5 minute search. There needs to be some clarification because the ones rip has had locked did contain comments/opinion from him. I think it's a great rule but there seems to be issues with it being applied consistently.

CsG

The poster that was linked to doen't have quite the same record of copying, pasting, and running, although said poster could clearly use some work in that category.

And? Why wasn't his thread locked? If the "rule" is X - then clearly the other thread should be locked - no?

CsG

FWIW I wasn't aware of the change in posting policy when I made that thread.

That still doesn't change the lack of action on your thread. I also really don't care that he is gone for 2 weeks - i just think that if this new rule is going to be enforced - it should be enforced consistently.

Red, yes it looks like it was the "Rip rule" - however from what I've seen the ones he had locked did infact have his own comments in the post. However it seems like a loophole was created within this new "rule" that the reply has to be "substantial". Ofcourse a Mack truck can be driven through this loophole and from the looks of it - it has been used. If more "rules" are going to be created, there best be consistent application of them and they better be well defined so as not to have gaping holes in them.

Second Red comment - No, bbond's comments are very different than mine although I suspect there was a reason you trotted my name out - but I'll keep that one under my hat for now

Can we get some clarification from the MODs on this? From what I've read from their mod comments, their "rule" has shifted from comments to "substantial" to non-troll. So what is it? Why haven't the other threads that are similar(or worse) than Rips not being acted upon? Is this rule going away because it's too hard to enforce because of the lack of definition? Sure would be nice to know exactly what is meant by this "rule"...

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Michael
BBD,

"8 of 13 provinces"

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are. As for the article itself, seemed to be a humour piece to me.

Taxes and opportunity attracted me from Canada to the USA and I have a much better opinion of the Canadian medical system than most conservative posters. However, it does work better because of the USA being right next door.

Anandtech Moderators,

You banned Riprorin for a thread that has generated a ton of responses and discussion? where he came in later and responded to a few of the original responses showing it wasn't just a post and run thread? Makes zero sense to me.

Michael

he's gotten multiple warnings in the past few days alone. look at some of his recent threads.

And yet there are many other thread that are similar to his that go untouched. charrison linked to one such thread. There are others. I found 5 in a quick 5 minute search. There needs to be some clarification because the ones rip has had locked did contain comments/opinion from him. I think it's a great rule but there seems to be issues with it being applied consistently.

CsG

The poster that was linked to doen't have quite the same record of copying, pasting, and running, although said poster could clearly use some work in that category.

And? Why wasn't his thread locked? If the "rule" is X - then clearly the other thread should be locked - no?

CsG

FWIW I wasn't aware of the change in posting policy when I made that thread.

That still doesn't change the lack of action on your thread. I also really don't care that he is gone for 2 weeks - i just think that if this new rule is going to be enforced - it should be enforced consistently.

Red, yes it looks like it was the "Rip rule" - however from what I've seen the ones he had locked did infact have his own comments in the post. However it seems like a loophole was created within this new "rule" that the reply has to be "substantial". Ofcourse a Mack truck can be driven through this loophole and from the looks of it - it has been used. If more "rules" are going to be created, there best be consistent application of them and they better be well defined so as not to have gaping holes in them.

Second Red comment - No, bbond's comments are very different than mine although I suspect there was a reason you trotted my name out - but I'll keep that one under my hat for now

Can we get some clarification from the MODs on this? From what I've read from their mod comments, their "rule" has shifted from comments to "substantial" to non-troll. So what is it? Why haven't the other threads that are similar(or worse) than Rips not being acted upon? Is this rule going away because it's too hard to enforce because of the lack of definition? Sure would be nice to know exactly what is meant by this "rule"...

CsG

This Thread was canned - Was it not enough commentary???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This Thread was canned - Was it not enough commentary???

I don't know - the MODs didn't leave a comments so it's hard to tell why they locked it. That doesn't change this issue though dave.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Can we get some clarification from the MODs on this? From what I've read from their mod comments, their "rule" has shifted from comments to "substantial" to non-troll. So what is it? Why haven't the other threads that are similar(or worse) than Rips not being acted upon? Is this rule going away because it's too hard to enforce because of the lack of definition? Sure would be nice to know exactly what is meant by this "rule"...

It's a shifting rule exactly like the reasons used to invade Iraq! :Q

Actually, I don't think Rip should have been given a vacation over this thread. He did give commentary and, AFAIK, there was no written requirement on the kind of commentary (but I've been wrong before).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Michael
BBD,

Nunavut was granted new status as a TERRITORY in 1999. It split off from the Northwest Territories. There are 10 provinces and 3 territories. Do you have anything else to teach me, o master of Canadian geography?

Note that I didn't say I disagreed with most of the points you were making, just that it is hard to take anyone seriously who is commenting on Canada and can't get the number of provinces right.

Michael

Yup and you currently live in one of the 46 US states and 4 commonwealths that make up the United States of America. Do the Northwest, Nunavut, and Yukon Territories have governments? Do they send representatives to Parliament? All three are no different from Wyoming . . . actually they are more akin to Alaska.

But point taken that technically Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories. Out of those 13 "entities", 8 have legally recognized gay marriage. In particular 7 provinces and ONE territory. In the US, we technically have 46 states and 4 commonwealths. If you are curious about the broad intolerance in America have a look at various states AND commonwealths

In sum, SEVEN of TEN Canadian provinces legally recognize gay marriage. ONE of THREE Canadian territories legally recognize gay marriage. In essence, only the backwater of Canada approaches American levels of bigotry.

 

[Michael]

BaliBayDoc,

I don't live in the USA right now. I haven't since last August. I live in Singapore.

You're batting 1.000 with your statements so far.

There's nothing "technical" about there being 10 provinces. That is how many there are. I can't recall every difference between a territory and a province, but I'm pretty sure ratifying Constitutional changes is one of them.

You tried to tap dance a little, but this may go down in P&N history where a poster directly admited that they were wrong. I should bookmark the thread.

Anything that has Ontario and Quebec behind it by definition has the majority of Canadians.

The USA has more than 50 states. It has territories and other legal entities in controls as well that have governments of some kind or another but are not states.

I think I tend to agree with 70% to 80% of the stances you take and I don't disagree with many of the other points (number of provinces aside) you were making in this thread.

Michael

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Michael
The USA has more than 50 states. It has territories and other legal entities in controls as well that have governments of some kind or another but are not states.

Don't forget to count Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Second Red comment - No, bbond's comments are very different than mine although I suspect there was a reason you trotted my name out - but I'll keep that one under my hat for now

This sort of thinking has been put forth here a time or two - only to be ignored by the chickendoves. They seem to love to trot out the tired old "chickenhawk" label but yet don't show their own convictions like they demand from others.

Hopefully some who read this will rethink their oft-bleated "chickenhawk" routine and calls for joining up. Probably won't have much affect - but it's out there if they want some reality.

CsG

BBond

It's impossible to hide behind a facade of lies even when a nation decides to be complicit in them. The truth just has a way of making itself known.

Bush was warned of the consequences before he attacked Iraq. Now all the warnings have come true.

The number of Americans who still choose to remain complicit is embarassing. And dangerous.

Besides the Political Persuasion I really don't see that much of a difference.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

You know something. I got a two week ban for a very minor infraction. Strangly, this infraction can one post after making a light-herated slight at Canadians after being slighted as American. And here, Riprorin makes a post that paints a negative portrait of Canada and gets the same two week ban. And there was no explanation for what rule he broke that isn't broken 100x daily on this forum.

Odd coincidence at best, imo.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Singapore . . . I remember thinking it was the most boring place in Southeast Asia. It's also ridiculously clean. I received decent fee-for-service healthcare in Singapore. I picked up amebic dysentery in one of the "less boring" SE Asian countries.

HOP, my take is that the accused did not "make a post" he merely cut/pasted tripe from John Leo and then gave a token insult. I'm not saying others have not made equally impotent contributions but the primary distinguishing factor is the frequency with which "this person" exhibits this behavior. Cops don't catch every speeder . . . they just catch: 1) frequent offenders and 2) the dumb ones.