squeaza wrote:TrikeTragic wrote:squeaza wrote:AMcCulloch wrote:I disagree
But my disagreement is much BIGGER than yours.
What methodology are you using to come to this conclusion? I suspect that given that I am possibly smaller than you, and have less available computer-time, that my disagreement is proportionally greater than yours. People on this forum seem particularly prone to massaging statistics to suit their arguments
Furthermore, on a per-wheel basis, my argument has a 1.5 weighting in comparison to yours. This would be blatantly obvious if you'd read any of the previous posts, or any posts at all for that matter
I'm using the tried and true rule of argument: Unsubstantiated and outrageous claims are based on statistics that can be massaged to support those claims with impunity, at least 70 % of the time, and my unsubstantiated claim is always in the 70 % that substantiate the claim.
It is possible that you are smaller than me since I am larger than average, but then I am from well-bred farming stock and would never denigrate someone's point of view (however piddly it might be) because they are size-disadvantaged compared to me. I discriminate indiscrimately.
My computer-time is variably available, more relevant is my forum access time and perhaps my "forum posting inclination". These have great impacts on the size of my argument but certainly don't make it disappear like bike lanes in Melbourne or invisible like helmets on bike couriers.
Now, the per wheel basis factor really works for the size of my argument, not against it. By taking one extra wheel out of circulation, I am reducing the need to argue about registering 0.5 of an upright bicycle, and at least 50 % of a helmet. On the other hand, the Argument thread has re-asserted its right to be on the front page of the forum, so my argument remains definitely bigger than yours. Nyah nyah.