ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
<google@larfx.net> wrote in message
news:1169477822.465917.247620@a75g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Larry, all you've done is present your OPINIONS, which are not supported
>> by the research on the subject. Claiming something is true doesn't make
>> it so, no matter how many times you do it.
>
> - No, I presented actual links and actual observances of more than just
> my own. Go back and open your eyes to what I have posted. Yes, I did
> present my opinions, as well, duh.
>
> See if you can show that you presented nothing more than your opinions,
> I don't remember you actually proving any facts in defense of your
> assertion that people need their lights on in broad daylight. What is
> next, you will be supporting Daylight Running Horns to alert people to
> your presence, oh yes I am sure that you could "make a case" for that,
> as well.
>
> Look, you have your opinions, I have mine. I have shown that we went
> for many many years without DRLs and would do just fine without them.
> But you seem to think that we need to see cars in the next county, LOL,
> you can't be serious.
>
> I have the history of use of lights during the day, the fact that many
> states had it as illegal before NHSTA allowed it, the fact that the
> majority of manufacturers see no reason to have them, that there is no
> direct evidence of DRLs being an actual safety feature and that there
> are studies that indicate that DRLs are actually detrimental to safety.
> I have offered up reasoned opinions on masking and the focus of
> distraction of the lights.
>
> You, however only talk about long distance usage to see a car far off
> and that in your opinion anyone that disagrees with your opinions is an
> idiot. In your defense, I think that you might have referenced one
> fact?? Anyway, you need to learn how to debate.
>
> I am still laughing at you and enjoying the fact that you continue to
> respond. It is as if you just can't help yourself.
>
> I wonder if you could care less about this subject, but go around
> picking fights, hmmm.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Larry
>

 

google@larfx.net wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor
>> do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is
>> that the information here is accurate or at least that both sides of an
>> issue get presented, so that others reading it can make informed
>> decisions. If you want to continue to post your bizarre opinions on this
>> subject as fact, I'll continue to point out your errors. Your
>> closed-mindedness is evident and your silly diversionary ploys don't
>> work. If you expect people to feel sorry for you or to accept your
>> opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things
>> to learn about Usenet.
>
> - Sounds like the one who needs to learn about Usenet, is you. The way
> that you presented your argument has failed, just admit it and go on.
>
> The proof of you being affected by this subject is very obvious. The
> evidence is the lack of clear reasoning in your discussions and the
> distinct lack of facts, as well. You post fast and fail to make sense,
> this is because this subject affects you. If you were just simply
> having a discussion, you would not have carried out such a tirade.
>
> You are for DRLs, wonderful, but you haven't made one distinctive point
> that even supports them. You are grasping at straws and I don't know
> why you even bother responding.
>
> Look, I don't want to know what your issues are, but your response to
> me shows that you have something going on that causes you to continue
> this.
>
> I really wish that I could help you, but apparently you are beyond
> assistance.

Larry, I don't need your help, but perhaps you should seek out
professional counsel. You have ignored everything others have presented
here and blindly stuck to your opinion, despite the evidence against it.
You are in complete denial of the truth, for some strange reason. I
tired of arguing with some who acts like an obstinate child. Everyone
here can see what you're doing and no one is supporting you or your
position. You're wrong. Get over it. Move on.

 

google@larfx.net wrote:

> I am still laughing at you and enjoying the fact that you continue to
> respond.

So finally you reveal your true character and intentions. You're just
another pathetic troll. Shame on me for not realizing that sooner.

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Larry, I don't need your help, but perhaps you should seek out
> professional counsel. You have ignored everything others have presented
> here and blindly stuck to your opinion, despite the evidence against it.
> You are in complete denial of the truth, for some strange reason. I
> tired of arguing with some who acts like an obstinate child. Everyone
> here can see what you're doing and no one is supporting you or your
> position. You're wrong. Get over it. Move on.

- You are still being affected by this subject, why? I still don't
know, LOL.

It would have been nice if you did have some evidence or a line of
reasoning, still haven't seen that.

Now, buzz off and go play with your friends, ROTFLOL.

Cheers,

Larry

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> So finally you reveal your true character and intentions. You're just
> another pathetic troll. Shame on me for not realizing that sooner.

- By the way, there are not any Trolls on Usenet, I figured you would
have known that. Especially since there is not any membership
requirements, hmmm.

Yes, I laugh at you. I laugh at anyone who calls people names and
spouts off with no facts. You keep doing it over and over.

The point of your continued posting is what?

,

Larry