Trolling Thread: For all your trolling needs

[Kudistos Megistos]

Actually planes are more unsafe than cars.  I know you have been led to believe otherwise but aviation uses hours and distance you travel and not the journey number.  By journey number this is the death toll:

Deaths per billion journeys
Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640

You are 3X more likely to die on plane.


<< reply to guy on other page.

I think it's quite hypocritical of you to complain about people manipulating statistics when you are doing exactly the same thing yourself, most likely because you like to be contrarian just for the sake of it.

One of the things that sets plane journeys apart from car journeys is that the former are nearly always much longer. Now I know what you're thinking: "BAWWW, plane accidents usually happen at take-off or landing!". That doesn't matter, because car crashes don't usually happen when the car is being started or parked. There's an increased risk of minor accidents at this time, but it isn't when most of the accidents happen. Therefore, the chance of death in a plane doesn't increase much as the journey becomes longer, but the chances of death in a car increases dramatically, to the point where car journeys that last more than a certain amount of time become much more dangerous than plane journeys. These longer journeys, which have a higher risk, are the only ones that are comparable to flights, since these are the only times when one might be unsure as to whether it's better to go by car than plane.

I suggest you think about why these statistics are useful. Your amazing revelation that you're less likely to die in a car trip to the shops than on a long-haul flight to Jakarta does not help someone who is, for example, thinking of the best way to get from New York to Los Angeles. Sure, the average flight has a greater chance of death than the average car ride, but the car ride you'd be taking is not an average one. The flight you'd be taking is an average one, and has an average chance of resulting in death. For any journey that it is appropriate to take by plane, you're many times more likely to die in a car ride than you are on a flight, and that is why planes are regarded as safer.

And while we're at it...

Where did you get those statistics from, Seifie-kun? You are aware that not all countries have equally safe roads or equally safe airspace. If these are British statistics, I suggest you bear in mind that British roads are exceptionally safe by global standards. That death rate per journey might be very different in one of those countries where road laws are seen more as friendly suggestions than actual laws. That is to say, anywhere below 50° latitude north. Most of the world's population lives in these dangerous places, where the sun and heat turn road rage into road madness, and every journey is a game of Russian roulette.

[DLPB_]

I think it's quite hypocritical of you to complain about people manipulating statistics when you are doing exactly the same thing yourself, most likely because you like to be contrarian just for the sake of it.

I don't think deaths by journey number is as unfair as death by miles travelled or hours travelled, and nor do the insurers.  No stat is perfect I made that clear but planes are not as safe as car in terms of deaths.  That's a statistical fact.  You sound quite irritated, perhaps you like to believe you are all hunky dory when on a plane   I also didn't manipulate the stats as I didn't compile them, professionals did.

Stats are here:

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ca14/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202000/Informed%20Sources%2010%202000.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#cite_note-38

It doesn't matter how you slice it, planes are not "the safest", at best they are "as safe" (and even that's in major dispute).  That's all.

Finally there is my preferred parameter, or rather the one I find most meaningful as I climb on a train. Fatalities per 100million or billion journeys, or its inverse, one fatality per so many journeys

This is, I think, (and readers may disagree) how risk is perceived at the moment of travel. Am I likely to survive this train journey, flight, drive and so on?

Railtrack certainly disagrees and argues that the passenger thinks in terms of making the same journey, that is travelling the same distance, in different ways. Hmm, but statistics show, for example, that a majority or car accidents happen within three miles of home, for example.

So, I still prefer journeys as the parameter. And on this basis, the DETR figures show buses and coaches at 4.3 per billion journeys, rail at 20, car at 40, air at 117 and motor bikes and mopeds at 1,640.

But I think (though readers may disagree), that the risk of death expressed one in so many journeys is more easily grasped.

Now, statistics such as those in the Table are riddled with inconsistencies. For example, as shown above, the rail figures cover falls at stations and passenger trespass. Coach and air don't include people standing too close to the runway, wing walking on 747s or falling down the escalator in the bus station.

[Kudistos Megistos]

I don't think deaths by journey number is as unfair as death by miles travelled or hours travelled, and nor do the insurers.  No stat is perfect I made that clear but planes are not as safe as car in terms of deaths.  That's a statistical fact.  You sound quite irritated, perhaps you like to believe you are all hunky dory when on a plane   I also didn't manipulate the stats as I didn't compile them, professionals did.

How hilarious. I sound irritated? Perhaps that's because I can see you being a hypocrite and manipulating statistics in a very brazen fashion. I wonder whether you have a fear of flying that you're trying to justify? FYI, I hardly ever fly, so don't try to use that against me.

And how on Earth can you thing that deaths by journey is less unfair when the journeys are so incomparable? Unless, you're extremely rich, you only use planes for extremely long journeys; it's not fair to compare them to shorter journeys made by car. It's only fair to compare like with like. By your logic, we might say that husbands are more dangerous than lions. After all, people who have ever had a husband are more likely to be killed by their husbands than people who have met lions are to be killed by said lions. But then, encounters with lions tend to be much more fleeting, so they are not always comparable.

Oh, and that little factoid you bolded about car accidents usually happening near the home? That's because most car journeys are only to places very near the home. Trips to the shop and school runs are much more common than cross-country treks. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that the longer a journey goes on, the more chance there is of a fatal accident, particularly when driver fatigue comes into play, as it does with longer drives. If there are 100million 1km journeys and 1million 500km journeys (we're getting into plane range here), and 10000 deaths in 1km journeys and 1000 in 500km journeys, does that mean that 500km journeys are safer? Certainly, there are fewer death in such journeys. But there are ten times as many deaths per journey.

And as I suspected, it was a British source. You know that for most countries, those car death figures would be much higher, right? Perhaps even higher than the per journey figure for planes.

Anyway, you seem to be hilariously missing the point of the article. Or at least, of tat section of the article. It was about how using one set of figures rather than the others can allow someone with mendacious intent to make one form of transport seem safer or more dangerous. And that's just what you've done! You've picked the data set that suited your prejudice (the least appropriate data set, seeing as planes are only used for longer journeys) and have used it mendaciously.

And finally (phew, I'm making a lot of paragraphs like this!). Those statistics are only for one year. Given the nature of plane deaths, being rare events that happen in clusters, data from just one year is very unreliable.

Of course, I don't plan on convincing you. We all know that when Seifer makes up his mind about something, he never changes it. That part of Seifer will never change. I just plan on exposing your fallacious reasoning lest others be seduced by it.

[DLPB_]

I don't quite understand how I can be manipulating stats that I did not compile LOL

[Kudistos Megistos]

I don't quite understand

No. I don't think you ever will.

[Armorvil]

I don't quite understand

No. I don't think you ever will.

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good. I think this would be a good time to stop going in that direction, KM. But it's only my opinion.

[Kudistos Megistos]

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good.

That depends on how one defines "good".

[sl1982]

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good.

That depends on how one defines "good".

Well lets see your definition of good. Because if you keep antagonizing him I am sure that you are not going to find it good by any definition of yours.

[Kudistos Megistos]

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good.

That depends on how one defines "good".

Well lets see your definition of good. Because if you keep antagonizing him I am sure that you are not going to find it good by any definition of yours.

Quick question:

When did pointing out the flaws in someone's argument become "antagonizing" him?

I hope that question won't be regarded as antagonism.

[sl1982]

The question is fine, the implication that he is not intelligent enough to understand what you are saying is not.

[Kudistos Megistos]

The question is fine, the implication that he is not intelligent enough to understand what you are saying is not.

He have me no choice! Look at the post I quoted, and ask yourself how anyone could resist that obvious comeback. He just left himself  w i d e  open to that one.

Anyway, that was a single post. There's no need to act like it was a continuous stream of provocation, which is what seems to be going on here.

[sl1982]

Oh come on, do you think I am stupid? You almost always argue the opposite side of a point just to stir things up. Especially when he is involved. There is a word for that you know... trolling? I seem to remember you discussing it before.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Oh come on, do you think I am stupid? You almost always argue the opposite side of a point just to stir things up. Especially when he is involved. There is a word for that you know... trolling? I seem to remember you discussing it before.

Actually, I gave the opposite side because what he was saying was extremely misleading. Wrong, if you will.

I only troll people if they deserve it. If I had agreed with what he was saying, I would have had no reason to troll him.

[sl1982]

No one deserves trolling. Attack his arguments if you feel the need to. Leave the attacking of the person out of it.

I think I have said enough on the matter.

[Jari]

The question is fine, the implication that he is not intelligent enough to understand what you are saying is not.

Truth can be a painful thing.

Case in point; you are now doing exactly what Seifie-kun demanded of me - acting as his personal damage control team. He makes a booboo - not that rare of an incidence, considering that he is stupid, and prone of making it lot worse, because he is an asshat.

Like I said... truth. It can hurt.

But do carry on, I find this most amusing.

Oh come on, do you think I am stupid? You almost always argue the opposite side of a point just to stir things up. Especially when he is involved. There is a word for that you know... trolling? I seem to remember you discussing it before.

So, it's now called trolling to disagree with an idiot who has issues?

Or are you suggesting that Kudi-chan is not right? If not - and I hope you aren't, because he obviously is - are you suggesting that disagreeing with Seifie-kun is trolling? Or perhaps you are suggesting that speaking the truth about Seifie-kun's behaviour is trolling?

Because it certainly looks like you are doing one of those things.

No one deserves trolling. Attack his arguments if you feel the need to. Leave the attacking of the person out of it.

How about you do the same?


PS. And I thought that no more LULZ could come from this thread, after the stupidest interpretation of statistics... well, ever. I was wrong, oh so wrong. This is great.

[sl1982]

Figures you would show up Jari.

The question is fine, the implication that he is not intelligent enough to understand what you are saying is not.

Truth can be a painful thing.

Case in point; you are now doing exactly what Seifie-kun demanded of me - acting as his personal damage control team. He makes a booboo - not that rare of an incidence, considering that he is stupid, and prone of making it lot worse, because he is an asshat.

I am not 'Seifie-kun's' damage control team. I have a problem with anyone who wishes to attack another person on here. Argue with whatever point you wish but start attacking people directly and i have a problem.

Like I said... truth. It can hurt.

But do carry on, I find this most amusing.

I am glad you are enjoying yourself. Wouldn't want to bore you.

Oh come on, do you think I am stupid? You almost always argue the opposite side of a point just to stir things up. Especially when he is involved. There is a word for that you know... trolling? I seem to remember you discussing it before.

So, it's now called trolling to disagree with an idiot who has issues?

Or are you suggesting that Kudi-chan is not right? If not - and I hope you aren't, because he obviously is - are you suggesting that disagreeing with Seifie-kun is trolling? Or perhaps you are suggesting that speaking the truth about Seifie-kun's behaviour is trolling?

Because it certainly looks like you are doing one of those things.

I shouldn't need to explain trolling to you Jari. You know exactly what it is.

No one deserves trolling. Attack his arguments if you feel the need to. Leave the attacking of the person out of it.

How about you do the same?

I have attacked no one. I have warned, but feel free to spin things whichever way you like.

PS. And I thought that no more LULZ could come from this thread, after the stupidest interpretation of statistics... well, ever. I was wrong, oh so wrong. This is great.
[/quote]

[Cupcake]

Goddamnit Jari, can't you just fucking drop it already?

Same goes for you Kudi, you're becoming more and more of an insufferable asshole by the day.

I mean really, we're not a large community, is it so goddamn hard to not hate each other?

[sl1982]

Goddamnit Jari, can't you just f*cking drop it already?

Same goes for you Kudi, you're becoming more and more of an insufferable ahole by the day.

I mean really, we're not a large community, is it so goddamn hard to not hate each other?

 

Everyone best drop this now.

[Jari]

Figures you would show up Jari.

Hey, you can call me your conscience if you want.

I am not 'Seifie-kun's' damage control team. I have a problem with anyone who wishes to attack another person on here. Argue with whatever point you wish but start attacking people directly and i have a problem.

If you say so. I admit, that is lot more realistic scenario than existence of a higher power - God if you will - and lots of people believe that, too.

I shouldn't need to explain trolling to you Jari. You know exactly what it is.

Hmmmm. Apparently it's one of the alternatives I pointed out then, since I don't see you disapproving them.

I have attacked no one. I have warned, but feel free to spin things whichever way you like.

O RLY? You sure you ain't picking on Kudi-chan, because he stepped on someone's toes? Someone who... let me guess, in one way or another was the first to come crying for mommy? I doubt he'd use the word "demand" again, that would have been bit too rich even for him, though.

Answer me this; do you seriously think that implying driving to be safer than flying based on that particular statistic is not stupid?

And if it is stupid, is it wrong to point out the person doing so is, in fact, stupid?

BTW, I do wonder why the statistics seem to have disappeared from Seifie-kun's post. This is totally unprecedented behavior! I have never seen anything like this from him! Must be the little grey aliens abducting text from his posts!

Goddamnit Jari, can't you just f*cking drop it already?

Same goes for you Kudi, you're becoming more and more of an insufferable ahole by the day.

I mean really, we're not a large community, is it so goddamn hard to not hate each other?

 

Everyone best drop this now.

Afraid of something, are we?

Anyway, I have things to do and places to be. Ta-ta for now.

[Cupcake]

Goddamnit Jari, can't you just f*cking drop it already?

Same goes for you Kudi, you're becoming more and more of an insufferable ahole by the day.

I mean really, we're not a large community, is it so goddamn hard to not hate each other?

 

Everyone best drop this now.

Afraid of something, are we?

Anyway, I have things to do and places to be. Ta-ta for now.

Or he's trying to keep order in the forum that no longer needs, or wants you.  Sorry you're not terribly important to us, must have you questioning your self worth, considering you keep coming back.

[xLostWingx]

We could always ignore that which we find to be inaccurate or offensive, perhaps focus on producing something?   "Interesting statistics, but I disagree, here is some alternative data." - Instead of "Statistics manipulation haha!" Of course attempting to use strange forms of subjective logic to encourage other strange forms of subjective logic makes for...whatever this^ is called.  It'd be fun to jump in, but you can always win these things by frusterating the other guy with deliberate stupidity - respond to something stupid, and there is now evidence you care about stupid things.  Too bad I can't say that without also applying it to this post.

[Armorvil]

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good.

That depends on how one defines "good".

If "good" to you means a flame-war and a troll-fest, yes, I can understand why you'd head into provocation territory. It's so fun, right ?

[Kudistos Megistos]

Or he's trying to keep order in the forum that no longer needs, or wants you.  Sorry you're not terribly important to us, must have you questioning your self worth, considering you keep coming back.

I find this amusing, given the fact that you yourself said that you'd leave the forums a few weeks ago and said that you aren't important.

Then changed your mind five minutes later.

Goddamnit Jari, can't you just f*cking drop it already?

Same goes for you Kudi, you're becoming more and more of an insufferable ahole by the day.

I mean really, we're not a large community, is it so goddamn hard to not hate each other?

I'm amused by how much the third line of that post contradicts the first two.

But I'm pleased that I now know where I stand. I wonder whether this hatred for me is because I didn't take the side of light and justice and defending fair maidens during that debacle you had with Jari a few weeks ago? Or maybe it's because I say bad things about Apple?

I apologize for him Kudi he has been off his med's for days.

Terrible things can happen when one is off one's meds. I once even got my husband's friend mixed up with my fiancé. That caused a lot of embarrassment during the wedding!

you are now doing exactly what Seifie-kun demanded of me - acting as his personal damage control team. He makes a booboo - not that rare of an incidence, considering that he is stupid, and prone of making it lot worse, because he is an asshat.

Indeed, but no just Seifer's personal damage control team. It seems like the best way to get the mods on your side 'round these parts is to be a troll. Perhaps sl would be more sympathetic to me if I spammed porn and threatened to kill people?

The current anti-flame war tactic seems to be forbidding anyone to robustly criticise the arguments of someone known to have a short temper. Just in case something bad happens. Like this. Of course, that means that we have to let certain people do whatever they want, just so that we can avoid trouble. That sounds like appeasement to me, and the last time i checked, appeasement had a less that perfect record in dealing with bad people.

Now, watch how quickly I get moderated for pointing out unpleasant facts!

[DLPB_]

LOL  You can't be taken seriously really.  It is clear to everyone you are a troll who is a bit butt hurt that your best pal left (and only returns when there is trouble )   I will leave you to it.  You turned a simple argument about aviation safety into a character assassination and baiting exercise.  Ask Jari where that gets you these days.  I am not that idiot who was here before, I don't take it that seriously anymore and I can ignore it or laugh at it.  Not to mention the mods here now actually do something.  You are a dyin' breed round these parts, and thank god for that.  If you want to act like a moron and fit in with your f*cked-up kind, I suggest you boogie on over to the Lifestream Forum.  You will find a lovely home there, for sure.  They will also agree with every crazy argument going, so you won't even need to argue.  IQ entrance fee <60.

Seriously, you  need to learn to get your fun elsewhere.  This is a bit basic.  You have both got to such a point that you don't even care how obvious your trolling is...  it has become second nature to you.  While we are at it, trolling is a mental disorder and is strongly linked to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

In other words it makes you awful, bitter people; delighting in the trouble you cause.   All you serve to teach us in this thread is that you are not nice people and are both mentally disturbed.  Usually stems from childhood and upbringing.

What is there to gain by provocating him ?... ...Answer : nothing good.

That depends on how one defines "good".

If "good" to you means a flame-war and a troll-fest, yes, I can understand why you'd head into provocation territory. It's so fun, right ?

best thing is to leave him here talking to himself about how bad I am.    It is no good being an obvious troll, and it is obvious to everyone here that he takes opposite sides to stir up a bit of trouble   With that in mind, what use is it even arguing with him?  Let's move on because he is getting exactly what he set out to achieve. 

A familiar pattern around here is the ones who don't contribute anything to FF7 are the same ones who go round trolling.  Always stuck in this section bringing up as many things as possible to get a reaction.  It is sad...  but not surprising that Kud is a regular over at 4chan. 

He goes on about Hermoor 24/7 but is no better than him.  I suggest Kud and jari go and join him, they are more alike than they believe.

back to the topic:

The whole point of the statistical slant was to show that people who quote "Planes are the safest" are basing it on dodgy stats; parroting the propaganda and brainwashing that is peddled by the media and aviation, and that a fairer stat is the deaths by JOURNEY NUMBER.  I don't think anyone here feels safer knowing that they are more likely to die in a plane by journey number and instead think "oh well, by miles travelled I am...so...I will just think of happy thoughts.  It's gonna be a goooooood day.".  That would be crazy.  The reason the aviation use that stat is because it looks good (honestly, that's obvious).  The reason the insurers use the death by journey number is because it is a more faithful statistic.  Yes I said more faithful, not perfect.

Planes usually crash and burn on take off or landing.. so what happens in-between is largely irrelevant.

I did not mean to claim that the stats show conclusively that planes are more dangerous than car, but that at best, planes are no more safe.  If I said that or gave that impression then I retract it.  They certainly are NOT the safest form of transport.  That is a fact.  An undeniable fact.  I am well aware that even the death by journey stats are not perfect and have problems in interpretation but they are far fairer than death by hours travelled or distance travelled. 

I would also like to add that given the choice of death, most of us would like the sharp fast death of car. If something goes wrong in a plane, generally you will be alive for a long time, in utter panic the likes of which you cannot conceive.  You are placing your life in the hands of a human operator, and hence most accidents in plane are human error related.  I am afraid that human error does exist on plane.. it doesn't just stop because the Aviation's dodgy stats say so.

I did not manipulate any statistics, as I did not compile the stats, I merely stated them.  The fact is, kud is just trolling and I would wager in direct conversation with his buddy, the lunatic Jari.   


If either had any real care for debate they would have attempted it, instead they made everyone aware that they have no argument other than "MANIPULATION!!!!!" and at the same time made their trolling look ridiculously blatant.  It is no surprise to find that the same people are the source of every argument on this forum and always will be.  You would have thought that their enormous practice at it would have made them more competent trolls, but as I said, they do it so much they have become complacent.  This thread has become the biggest joke ever, and it is all on Kud and jari!

Cheers boys

1 last thing.  You 2 need to give up trying to bait me and troll me.  We are never going back to the old days so move on.    That way you will at least maintain some sort of dignity instead of being the laughing stock of the forum.  I will not be back to this thread.

[obesebear]

The attempts to make other people look stupid are pathetic now.  Was it a little amusing when it was happening a year or so ago? Sure.   But when it becomes a noticeable pattern (dare I say obsession), it just becomes sad.

Jari, I used to enjoy your humor; your posts used to be a real nice read because you seemed to have a really fun-loving personality.  But now that you've had a falling out with Qhimm, it's time to be upset and blame Mako and DLPB.  Oh no! Mako may have been a past troll who has cleaned up her act!! Whatever shall we do?  DLPB posts his opinion as 100% fact, yet has ceased outright attacking people... Good God it's chaos!  Now please, go ahead and quote my post and make some more complaints while pretending to somehow be superior to me.

Kudistos.. Really dude?  We're not dumb.  It's blindingly obvious you still dislike DLPB.  Granted for the most part you've put the past behind you and tried to be civil, it seems any chance you get to call him out on something you do it.  Not just debating something he's decided is pure fact, but mocking and belittling him as well.  If you want to debate posts and show how your side is the only side worth caring about, fine, good, do it.  Personally, I love playing devil's advocate, but when you start slandering people, you start losing the respect of everyone witnessing it.

DLPB, just because we're "on your side" right now, gives you no right to question anyone's IQ.  You're becoming guilty of the same character defamation you're accusing KM of, which most of us now know as baiting.

I too HIGHLY suggest everyone ceases the name calling.  Debating is all well and good, and I love it, but let's keep it at that.