Wrong Way MFFY!

http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg

Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.

The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
You can even see the one way signs in the background.

gpsman or DYM: this is where you spout off about how those other
drivers had no right to create noise pollution like that.

Dave

Dave, > was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on 20 Dec 2005 15:52:33 -0800:
>
> http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
>
> Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
> understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
>
> The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
> one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
> You can even see the one way signs in the background.

Maybe his brain is sunbaked (noting he is driving an convertible)?

On 20 Dec 2005 15:52:33 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
>
>Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
>understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
>
>The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
>one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
>You can even see the one way signs in the background.
>
>gpsman or DYM: this is where you spout off about how those other
>drivers had no right to create noise pollution like that.

That's right - you're not a JLEDI (Just Let 'Em Do It) so you must be
a MFFY.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 15:52:33 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
> >
> >Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
> >understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
> >
> >The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
> >one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
> >You can even see the one way signs in the background.
> >
> >gpsman or DYM: this is where you spout off about how those other
> >drivers had no right to create noise pollution like that.
>
> That's right - you're not a JLEDI (Just Let 'Em Do It) so you must be
> a MFFY.

Even as a pedestrian on the sidewalk...

Dave

Dave wrote:
> http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
>
> Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
> understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
>
> The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
> one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
> You can even see the one way signs in the background.
-----
No, it doesn't. It seems to show a car traveling the "wrong" direction
on a one-way street. It shows nothing else you describe. No four
other drivers, no honking, no flips. Your description though, shows a
lack of cognitive ability.

The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment was
driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d. the
violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to do
so. He looks like a majority to me.

Case dismissed. Next case.
-----

- gpsman

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:

> The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment was
> driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d. the
> violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to do
> so. He looks like a majority to me.

It's clear you don't understand basic concepts then.

If you can produce engineering studies and the MUTCD to back that view
with one way streets, then go for it. But if you don't, well then you're
just full of crap.

> No, it doesn't. It seems to show a car traveling the "wrong" direction
> on a one-way street. It shows nothing else you describe. No four
> other drivers, no honking, no flips. Your description though, shows a
> lack of cognitive ability.
>
> The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment was
> driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d. the
> violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to do
> so. He looks like a majority to me.
>
> Case dismissed. Next case.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

OK, up to this point, I thought gpsman was just an asshole. Now I see he is
a troll. I'm surprised it took me this long to figure that out. I'm
disappointed, actually. Got to adjust my troll sensor now. -Dave

> The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment
> was driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d.
> the violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to
> do so. He looks like a majority to me.
>
> Case dismissed. Next case.

Lol - true! I think the photo demonstrates sufficient "engineering study".

85th percentile my ass. Where do these people dream up such nonsense?

I mean - 85%? wtf is that supposed to mean? I guess if it's mentioned
enough sheeple will fall in line and bleet it?

In article >, JohnH wrote:
>
>> The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment
>> was driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d.
>> the violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to
>> do so. He looks like a majority to me.
>>
>> Case dismissed. Next case.
>
> Lol - true! I think the photo demonstrates sufficient "engineering study".
>
> 85th percentile my ass. Where do these people dream up such nonsense?
>
> I mean - 85%? wtf is that supposed to mean? I guess if it's mentioned
> enough sheeple will fall in line and bleet it?

Heaven forbid people learn about how to actually set a speed limit
properly as per all the engineering studies and offical guidelines.
(which are rutinely ignored)

So, where's your pile of studies that show setting speed limits by
pulling a number out of an elected offical's ass results in a minimum of
collisions? Or anything else that counters the 85th percentile method.

All I ever see as counter arguement is nonsense like you two demonstrate
above. Never any real data.

> All I ever see as counter arguement is nonsense like you two
> demonstrate above. Never any real data.

The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number 85?