Dumb Arizona female runner calls out Olympic runner for running with headphones

then you're trying to inflate them by introducing parameters we simply don't know about

Am I? Where's that then? All I'm saying is that you can't take the number 116 as anything other than an estimate, therefore you can't calculate statistical significance from it. How is that inflation?

Interesting that you're now trying to tug at the heart strings by talking of the significance of these accidents to their loved ones (wow, you don't say) yet you're happy enough to see Andrew Lemoncello get hit by a car.

Since I'm not the one who set statistical significance as a benchmark, whether or not I introduce another benchmark is entirely at my discretion.

And, for the record, anyone dumb enough to get hit by a car because they were distracted by noise coming through the headphones they chose to wear gets no sympathy from me, but that doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for their families. Perhaps you CAN take the time to work out that distinction?

yes, the distinction is clear thanks. Your quote :

"Now, I don't actually give a crap if Lemoncello gets hit by a car"

would imply no sympathy for anyone, since the scenario involved is something you "don't give a crap" about. Keep tweaking that moral compass

Vanishing Point wrote:

yes, the distinction is clear thanks. Your quote :

"Now, I don't actually give a crap if Lemoncello gets hit by a car"

would imply no sympathy for anyone, since the scenario involved is something you "don't give a crap" about. Keep tweaking that moral compass

This is the best you've got? That implication is a total falsehood manufactured out of your sad desperation to score some sort of, any sort of, point against me.

You have no basis to imply anything of the sort, please take your desperate lies elsewhere.

you're odd, you really are. All you ever care about is 'scoring points' on this board. Your quote earlier about me trying to 'impugn my opponent with an irrelevance' convinced me you were a troll, no-one would write that in all seriousness. Unfortunately (for you), it seems like you were serious and that all you ever want to do is come on this board looking for a scrap. I'm not sure how I've tried to score points against you, I just dispute the danger of wearing headphones to go for a run.

And I was kind with that quote, because I didn't include it all. Your main concern appeared to be your own image as a 'runner'. Other than that though, the implication is quite clear - you don't give a crap if it happens. How does that make what I wrote 'desperate lies'?

Thank you. It would be kind of dull if we were all alike - especially idf we were all like you!

I'd apologise for being more educated than you are, except that it's not something I'm sorry about.

What is it with losers like you insisting that anyone who can run rings around them in an argument is a troll? If you aren't up to the job, don't get in the game.

Well a classic symptom of "points-scoring" is that you just keep flinging out new accusations without defending the accusations you made previously (you accused me of "inflating" the number of accidents, but when I pointed out the fact that I hadn't inflated anything, instead of countering you immediately accused me of moving the goalposts from statistical to emotional significance (despite the fact that I didn't set the goal) - this is evidence that your participation in this thread is simply an attempt to trip me up and score a point against me.)

That's absolutely delightful, now please attempt to do so by either disproving the evidence that I've presented, or presenting evidence of your own that disproves my contention (I promise that, if you do, I won't try to change the subject on you like you've tried to do on me).

Presenting your opinion, or some anecdote, is irrelevant and useless - put up something real, or don't play.

My hide is quite thick, and I wouldn't be so kind to you, so quote away!

Another baseless implication, you have not even the slightest knowledge how I see myself as a 'runner' (hint: I don't), so you have no grounds to make that accusation.

Dude, you really should stop talking - that was no implication, I really don't give a crap if it happens, but you can't, from that statement (not implication, statement, look it up), imply that I wouldn't feel any sympathy for the runner's family.

Well, we've established that I bruised your sensitive little ego at some point in the past, so you've come on to this thread with the sole intention (well demonstrated) of scoring some points off of me. Your shots have missed by a mile, so, in desperation, you've made an illegitimate implication and presented it as fact. A synonym for "illegitimate implication presented as fact" is "desperate lie". Clear enough for you?

GenericID:

Time to call it quits. You lost this one...badly. Nothing you can post will change that fact. Pack this one up and move on to the next battle. Godspeed.

yes, you are definitely odd. All this 'claiming victory' stuff and somehow assuming I'm hurt and damaged by the (supposed) mauling you're giving me is amusing though.

Let's be clear about this - I don't think running with headphones is dangerous. You do, so you provided links to some studies which provide statistics suggesting so. Others have provided links to studies showing that they make up a tiny, tiny fraction of overall pedestrian injuries. Whether they make up any more or not, we don't know so can't speculate on it. No anecdotes or opinions, just what we know to be true. How do YOU know the increase isn't due to increased numbers of people wearing headphones in the first place? There is no categorical proof that headphones were the cause of these accidents, just that they were being worn at the time. The sample pool is so small, and there are so many other variables as a potential cause of an accident that it simply cannot be used as proof.

"..but if his selfish and ignorant behaviour were to be the cause of an innocent bystander getting killed, then it does concern me, because all runners would get tarred with the "selfish and ignorant" brush, and all our lives would be worse." - Yes, I think there's a fairly strong indication there that you'd be concerned about your image as a runner, particularly the use of the word 'our'. Unless of course you mean, everybody in the whole world's lives would be worse as a result.

Has been nice to learn the following though:

1) I don't care at all about the subject matter, I just want to score points

2) My sensitive little ego is bruised

3) I'm a liar!

4) You're more educated than me, presumably on the assumption that I don't use phrases usually found in history books whilst engaging in normal conversation

5) You are not a hypocrite at all. You like to accuse others of trying to score points but absolutely wouldn't dream of doing so yourself. I've seen your other threads - it is all you ever do, believe me.

GenericID wrote:

Thank you. It would be kind of dull if we were all alike - especially idf we were all like you!

Typo. -2 points.

Where did I claim victory?

You really need to learn to read what is written and respond to that, it makes for a much better discussion.

No they haven't, and that's the point - none of you have provided anything remotely resembling evidence.

Even if the evidence was there that running with headphones represents only a small risk, it is an entirely avoidable risk. What bugs me about headphone wearers is that they create an unnecessary risk, not just for themselves but for others.

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to put yourself in as much risk as you want to, but when you imperil my family and I, then I feel entitled to complain about your selfish behaviour.

The word "impugn" confuses you? Perhaps you should buy one of those "word of the day" calendars?

What's important is that you believe yourself - after all, you seem very adept at creating a little world of your own - take this imaginary victory claim for example.

Yeah, he means that she actually said that to him...he could have written it better. An actual quote from her would have made his little column stronger. But, not everyone is a writer. Too bad an editor for the Arizona Daily Sun didn't request that of him or at least edit it so that it was 100% clear that she actually said that to him.

sigh ....

Is there are a study showing the number of pedestrian accidents in the USA in a given timeframe? Yes

Is there another study (by the same people) showing data on all reported pedestrian accidents whilst the pedestrian was wearing headphones in a similar timeframe? Yes

Is the number involved in the latter a tiny, tiny proportion of the former? So small that it falls way, way, way below the level of any statistical significance? Yes

And your evidence? Again I'll ask, how do you know the headphones were the cause? Perhaps you'd also like to link in headphone sales over the corresponding period with your data (including all smartphones, mp3 players etc.. which provide free headphones)?

And yes, you claiming that you're 'running rings around me' is a good indication that you think you're winning.

And just because there are particular words or phrases I wouldn't use in passing, it doesn't therefore mean they confuse me.

Is there are a study showing the number of pedestrian accidents in the USA in a given timeframe?

Yes

Is there another study (by the same people) showing data on all reported pedestrian accidents whilst the pedestrian was wearing headphones in a similar timeframe?

No

sigh ...

And yes, you claiming that you're 'running rings around me' is a good indication that you think you're winning.

Not seeing the word "victory" there.

sigh ...

@GenericID

Give it up. Your vaunted study, which you were waving around your head shouting, "SCIENCE...SCIENCE", went down in flames. The cold, hard numbers from the study proved you wrong. You don't know what statistical significance is. You don't even know how to accurately sort through information in a non-emotional manner. You don't know how to do basic math, as proved when you called my calculations "fake". You are out of your depth, and continuing to argue makes you look like an idiot. Every time you've desperately latched onto one point of my post, ignoring the rest, I've proved you wrong. Now you've resorted to pseudo-scientific speculation, speculation, and more speculation. As I said before, get out.It's entirely reasonable to assume you are a troll when you have no basic knowledge of math, statistics, or the basic scientific method.

headphones study - not by the same people, my mistake. Still a legitimate study, the numbers don't lie. Everything else is true though, no?

So what does 'to run rings around someone' mean exactly?

my mistake

Yes, yes it was.

Everything else is true though, no?

No.

go on then bright spark, tell us the 'wrong' part.

ps. I notice you're quite selective about what you choose to reply to. Basically, when you're wrong about something you ignore it

Basically, when you're wrong about something you ignore it

sure. Remember when you said I had no grounds to imply that you were worried about your image as a runner? And then I showed you the quote where you were saying exactly that.

That your claim of 'running rings around me' doesn't mean you think you're winning.

And then I showed you the quote where you were saying exactly that.