Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
- Thread starter robertsondavies
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
You probably think the old saying about falling off a horse applies to a barstool.
RDavies, I really hope for the sake of your cause that you won't be the one crafting/presenting the argument to the county for expanding LSV usage.
shocker you few seem to agree (again).
You've so soundly refuted all the arguments made in 46 legislatures, and so quickly, you'd think you have degrees in Communications.
you guys are right, these arguments will not resonate in Walton County, as they have elsewhere...
1. reduced dependece on foreign oil - "FOOOOEY" sayeth the well respected Skunkape, that's nothing we're concerned with here in South Walton - we won't be impacted here!"
2. Safety - yeah, right, I know better than the insurance actuaries, OR common sense sayeth the popular and respected member of the board GEO, it will be unsafe to lower that stretch of roadway to 35 from 45, especially with bikers within 2 feet of the road.
3. Greener - "fooey" sayeth some... we think there its questionable because you cause pollution in the production of LSVs.
Case Closed - argument are adjudged to be "Weak" by the guy with the masters in communications and seconded by several of his friends, so there is definitely no chance that those "weak" arguments, presented by this outsider are of any material consequence, like they've been in 46 F-ING Legislatures seeking to expand said usage of LSV.s
Me, I give up with you guys. I'm going to enroll at Phoenix University tomorrow for a Comms. degree.
You've so soundly refuted all the arguments made in 46 legislatures, and so quickly, you'd think you have degrees in Communications.
you guys are right, these arguments will not resonate in Walton County, as they have elsewhere...
1. reduced dependece on foreign oil - "FOOOOEY" sayeth the well respected Skunkape, that's nothing we're concerned with here in South Walton - we won't be impacted here!"
2. Safety - yeah, right, I know better than the insurance actuaries, OR common sense sayeth the popular and respected member of the board GEO, it will be unsafe to lower that stretch of roadway to 35 from 45, especially with bikers within 2 feet of the road.
3. Greener - "fooey" sayeth some... we think there its questionable because you cause pollution in the production of LSVs.
Case Closed - argument are adjudged to be "Weak" by the guy with the masters in communications and seconded by several of his friends, so there is definitely no chance that those "weak" arguments, presented by this outsider are of any material consequence, like they've been in 46 F-ING Legislatures seeking to expand said usage of LSV.s
Me, I give up with you guys. I'm going to enroll at Phoenix University tomorrow for a Comms. degree.
Uhm. In earlier posts, you said 48 Legislatures. You also cited the Sierra Club, which proved false. You seem to be rapidly losing supporters that you may have never had to begin with...
I didn't say "FOOOOEY", I said Bullsheet! I do hear golf carts are popular in Phoenix.
RDavies,
Do you remember when I presented the Sowal bar analogy? Sleep it off, pal.
EDIT: For the record- You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I know better than insurance actuaries. And I didn't say it was unsafe to lower the speed limit. I said I didn't care. I said your arguments are weak. And I said lowering the speed limit remains unnecessary and that you should just admit that your motivating factor for lobbying heavily for this is that it is fun to drive a golf cart at the beach.
The only reason I pointed out that I have a communications background is because you erroneously accused folks who disagree with your nonsense as suffering from Groupthink.
So if I follow your (attempted) logic, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and CNN are members of a Sowal clique because they agree LSVs aren't safe to use on public roads with regular cars? :roll: