Originally posted by FMFSir,
I think the nostalgia about these forums overrates what was actually going on and is propagated by those still here who are some combination of mean spirited, lumbering, malcontented and artless, and probably always have been. I think the forums were much of a muchness 10 years ago.
As you asked someone else this question to a statement they made. What evidence do you have to back up what you are saying? Looks like just your own opinion to me. 😉 Have you ever been incorrect about ANYTHING???
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
28 Jul 16
Originally posted by Very RustyWhat else would it be in a conversation like this? Of course it's my opinion.
As you asked someone else this question to a statement they made. What evidence do you have to back up what you are saying? Looks like just your own opinion to me.
Originally posted by FMFSir,
What else would it be in a conversation like this? Of course it's my opinion.
You were asking someone earlier in this thread if they have evidence. So they need evidence for their opion but you don't.....LOL...Funny stuff, I'd like to stay and play but I got an early day tomorrow.
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
28 Jul 16
Originally posted by Very Rustylemon lime was responding to a post that was seeking empirical evidence. He mistakenly offered an anecdote instead. The Flynn Effect, for all its faults or overstated significance, is based on empirical evidence and not anecdotal evidence. You wittering on about how much better you think the forum used to be, and me commenting on how you are simply wittering on nostalgically, is not a disagreement that lies in the realm of empirical evidence.
You were asking someone earlier in this thread if they have evidence.
28 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFYou said objective or empirical evidence.
It doesn't matter how you dice it, an anecdote about a guy in a self driving car running into a truck isn't empirical evidence of anything.
Now you're insisting on only empirical evidence.
I knew long before ever hearing about an (avoidable) accident that I would keep my eyes on the road in a self driving car. Even with upgrades and refinements in this new technology situations can (and will) come up requiring some quick thinking and maneuvering on the part of the driver.
Originally posted by Very RustyApparently, he doesn't even need to be correct. All he needs is a talent at getting those with an even lower IQ to agree with him, much like a certain Republican nominee.
Sir,
As you asked someone else this question to a statement they made. What evidence do you have to back up what you are saying? Looks like just your own opinion to me. 😉 Have you ever been incorrect about ANYTHING???
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
28 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFOh good grief...
lemon lime was responding to a post that was seeking empirical evidence. He mistakenly offered an anecdote instead. The Flynn Effect, for all its faults or overstated significance, is based on empirical evidence and not anecdotal evidence. You wittering on about how much better you think the forum used to be, and me commenting on how you are simply wittering on nostalgically, is not a disagreement that lies in the realm of empirical evidence.
What say we all chip in and buy FMF a self driving car, with a built-in movie screen?
28 Jul 16
Originally posted by lemon limeA single anecdote can't be objective evidence that society is getting dumber. Plenty of drivers were doing dumb things 10 yeas ago, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Your anecdote about the dumb driver, at best, is objective evidence that there are still dumb drivers now. It certainly is neither objective nor empirical evidence that society is getting dumber.
You said objective or empirical evidence.
Now you're insisting on only empirical evidence.
I knew long before ever hearing about an (avoidable) accident that I would keep my eyes on the road in a self driving car. Even with upgrades and refinements in this new technology situations can (and will) come up requiring some quick thinking and maneuvering on the part of the driver.
Originally posted by SuzianneSo do you think this forum was populated by a larger proportion of people who were "smarter" back then compared to now?
Apparently, he doesn't even need to be correct. All he needs is a talent at getting those with an even lower IQ to agree with him, much like a certain Republican nominee.