16yrl GIRL went around the world in a small boat.

Gary Carter

LikeAnOcean wrote:

My grandma lived in a city her whole life.. visited Yellowstone once and was eaten by a bear. True story.

excellent point LAO. sorry what happened to your grandma. does she have nasty scars.

LikeAnOcean

metsfan wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

My grandma lived in a city her whole life.. visited Yellowstone once and was eaten by a bear. True story.

excellent point LAO. sorry what happened to your grandma. does she have nasty scars.

Tore her head clear off.. corpse stumbled around for 50 feet before the cubs brought it down.

eyedclaar

metsfan wrote:

nyc was the safest biggest city in 2009. wow that must be shocking to you huh.


so you've called me dense and now you've assumed i'm stupid. wow great job with the name calling :thumbup: :thumbup:

No that isn't shocking to me at all. AND, I clearly didn't go anywhere near far enough on the name calling because you prove yourself to be even dumber than I could possibly imagine with every continuing post. Seriously, I have to leave now, but could someone else take a shot at explaining this concept that even my cats understand...

josevolution

I thought we were discussing the chick sailing around the world

eyedclaar

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Statistically people are probably more likely to get killed by a person than a bear, but yes, cities are much safer than people make them out to be..

So, you do get it. Maybe you can help metsfan. Good luck.

Gary Carter

eyedclaar wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Statistically people are probably more likely to get killed by a person than a bear, but yes, cities are much safer than people make them out to be..

So, you do get it. Maybe you can help metsfan. Good luck.

dude i've been saying the whole time a city is safer then the wild. your the one that made it out to be like the wild is some kinda safe place. hey thanks for the name calling. im sure that's not allowed on here or something.

LikeAnOcean

eyedclaar wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Statistically people are probably more likely to get killed by a person than a bear, but yes, cities are much safer than people make them out to be..

So, you do get it. Maybe you can help metsfan. Good luck.

I think the point Metsfan might be trying to prove is that its safer to cross paths with a person than a bear. He's immagining walking into a forest overrun with 8 million bears and thinking, "fuck that!"

LikeAnOcean

Metsfan..

My grandma was NOT eaten by a bear.. I was just poking fun at a point.

Gary Carter

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I think the point Metsfan might be trying to prove is that its safer to cross paths with a person than a bear. He's immagining walking into a forest overrun with 8 million bears and thinking, "fuck that!"

wow see you get what i'm saying. i swear its like talking to a brick wall sometimes.



hey eyed i hear brownsville brooklyn is nice. you should visit it if you ever come to nyc.

_

eyedclaar wrote:

metsfan wrote:

nyc was the safest biggest city in 2009. wow that must be shocking to you huh.


so you've called me dense and now you've assumed i'm stupid. wow great job with the name calling :thumbup: :thumbup:

No that isn't shocking to me at all. AND, I clearly didn't go anywhere near far enough on the name calling because you prove yourself to be even dumber than I could possibly imagine with every continuing post. Seriously, I have to leave now, but could someone else take a shot at explaining this concept that even my cats understand...

What the hell, I'll give it a shot....

metsfan, eyed is not afraid of NYC or other cities. He is not saying that NYC is a dangerous place, nor is he saying that an encounter with a person in NYC is more dangerous than an encounter with a bear in the wilderness.

He was simply trying to explain the relative risk of hanging out in the wilderness, so as to put the danger of the wilderness into perspective. Statistically speaking, a person is more likely to die in the city than in the wilderness, therefore the wilderness should not be feared more than the city.

Another example of relative risk is that more people die in car accidents when they drive than in terrorist attacks when they fly. Therefore, the likelihood of being killed while driving is much greater than the likelihood of being killed while flying, so it does not make logical sense to be more afraid of flying than of driving.

You seem to be thinking more of case fatality rates, which is the likelihood of dying in the event that you are attacked by a bear or the victim of a terrorist attack. Certainly, your average bear attack more likely results in death than an average encounter with a New Yorker, just as being the victim of a terrorist attack is more deadly than being in a car accident.

But relative risk counts everyone who is at risk of an event occurring, not just the people to whom it actually occurs. E.g., it counts everyone who enters the wilderness, not just those who are attacked by bears, and everyone who flies on a plane, not just those who are the victims of terrorist attacks. Therefore, because terrorist attacks happen with much less frequency than car accidents, the risk to people who fly is much less than the risk to people who drive. So people shouldn't be more afraid of flying than of driving; they should only be more afraid of dying if they are actually attacked by terrorists.

So what eyed is saying is just that violence occurs in the wilderness much less frequently than violence occurs in the city, and therefore he shouldn't be more afraid of the wilderness than of the city. So if we think the city is safe enough to be in, we should think the wilderness is safe enough to be in too.

Clear as mud now?

Gary Carter

scb wrote:

eyedclaar wrote:

metsfan wrote:

nyc was the safest biggest city in 2009. wow that must be shocking to you huh.


so you've called me dense and now you've assumed i'm stupid. wow great job with the name calling :thumbup: :thumbup:

No that isn't shocking to me at all. AND, I clearly didn't go anywhere near far enough on the name calling because you prove yourself to be even dumber than I could possibly imagine with every continuing post. Seriously, I have to leave now, but could someone else take a shot at explaining this concept that even my cats understand...

What the hell, I'll give it a shot....

metsfan, eyed is not afraid of NYC or other cities. He is not saying that NYC is a dangerous place, nor is he saying that an encounter with a person in NYC is more dangerous than an encounter with a bear in the wilderness.

He was simply trying to explain the relative risk of hanging out in the wilderness, so as to put the danger of the wilderness into perspective. Statistically speaking, a person is more likely to die in the city than in the wilderness, therefore the wilderness should not be feared more than the city.

Another example of relative risk is that more people die in car accidents when they drive than in terrorist attacks when they fly. Therefore, the likelihood of being killed while driving is much greater than the likelihood of being killed while flying, so it does not make logical sense to be more afraid of flying than of driving.

You seem to be thinking more of case fatality rates, which is the likelihood of dying in the event that you are attacked by a bear or the victim of a terrorist attack. Certainly, your average bear attack more likely results in death than an average encounter with a New Yorker, just as being the victim of a terrorist attack is more deadly than being in a car accident.

But relative risk counts everyone who is at risk of an event occurring, not just the people to whom it actually occurs. E.g., it counts everyone who enters the wilderness, not just those who are attacked by bears, and everyone who flies on a plane, not just those who are the victims of terrorist attacks. Therefore, because terrorist attacks happen with much less frequency than car accidents, the risk to people who fly is much less than the risk to people who drive. So people shouldn't be more afraid of flying than of driving; they should only be more afraid of dying if they are actually attacked by terrorists.

So what eyed is saying is just that violence occurs in the wilderness much less frequently than violence occurs in the city, and therefore he shouldn't be more afraid of the wilderness than of the city. So if we think the city is safe enough to be in, we should think the wilderness is safe enough to be in too.

Clear as mud now?

it was a clear as mud as the first time. i was just having a go wit him cause he thinks nyc is some big bad city when he hasnt even be here.

_

metsfan wrote:

scb wrote:

eyedclaar wrote:

No that isn't shocking to me at all. AND, I clearly didn't go anywhere near far enough on the name calling because you prove yourself to be even dumber than I could possibly imagine with every continuing post. Seriously, I have to leave now, but could someone else take a shot at explaining this concept that even my cats understand...

What the hell, I'll give it a shot....

metsfan, eyed is not afraid of NYC or other cities. He is not saying that NYC is a dangerous place, nor is he saying that an encounter with a person in NYC is more dangerous than an encounter with a bear in the wilderness.

He was simply trying to explain the relative risk of hanging out in the wilderness, so as to put the danger of the wilderness into perspective. Statistically speaking, a person is more likely to die in the city than in the wilderness, therefore the wilderness should not be feared more than the city.

Another example of relative risk is that more people die in car accidents when they drive than in terrorist attacks when they fly. Therefore, the likelihood of being killed while driving is much greater than the likelihood of being killed while flying, so it does not make logical sense to be more afraid of flying than of driving.

You seem to be thinking more of case fatality rates, which is the likelihood of dying in the event that you are attacked by a bear or the victim of a terrorist attack. Certainly, your average bear attack more likely results in death than an average encounter with a New Yorker, just as being the victim of a terrorist attack is more deadly than being in a car accident.

But relative risk counts everyone who is at risk of an event occurring, not just the people to whom it actually occurs. E.g., it counts everyone who enters the wilderness, not just those who are attacked by bears, and everyone who flies on a plane, not just those who are the victims of terrorist attacks. Therefore, because terrorist attacks happen with much less frequency than car accidents, the risk to people who fly is much less than the risk to people who drive. So people shouldn't be more afraid of flying than of driving; they should only be more afraid of dying if they are actually attacked by terrorists.

So what eyed is saying is just that violence occurs in the wilderness much less frequently than violence occurs in the city, and therefore he shouldn't be more afraid of the wilderness than of the city. So if we think the city is safe enough to be in, we should think the wilderness is safe enough to be in too.

Clear as mud now?

it was a clear as mud as the first time. i was just having a go wit him cause he thinks nyc is some big bad city when he hasnt even be here.

I think the whole point is that he doesn't think NYC is some big bad city; you have just misinterpreted his comments. Seems clear to me. Just sayin'....

Gary Carter

again i was just having a go with him cause he mentioned nyc. seem clear enough now to you. it's cute you feel the need to stick up for your friend :roll: . it's people like you and many others that made me not have the desire to post in the what is called the MT. i''m sure others feel the same way seeing as how the MT is just a big pissing match between board members.

EvilClosetMonkey

Anyone??... ah, drunk Sat night on AET

Gary Carter

the american girl was found by aussie planes

:thumbup:

catefrances

metsfan wrote:

the american girl was found by aussie planes

:thumbup:

well of course she was... its what we do.

DewieCox

But what about a grizzly bear IN the city??

_

metsfan wrote:

again i was just having a go with him cause he mentioned nyc. seem clear enough now to you. it's cute you feel the need to stick up for your friend :roll: . it's people like you and many others that made me not have the desire to post in the what is called the MT. i''m sure others feel the same way seeing as how the MT is just a big pissing match between board members.

Whatever. :roll: You don't have to act like an ass about it. I don't even know eyed, by the way. But he asked if someone else would try to explain to you what he was saying and I felt his frustration due to how ridiculous it is that you couldn't understand his point. As for the MT, please, by all means, stay away. It's a place for people who actually possess powers of comprehension.

Gary Carter

scb wrote:

metsfan wrote:

again i was just having a go with him cause he mentioned nyc. seem clear enough now to you. it's cute you feel the need to stick up for your friend :roll: . it's people like you and many others that made me not have the desire to post in the what is called the MT. i''m sure others feel the same way seeing as how the MT is just a big pissing match between board members.

Whatever. :roll: You don't have to act like an ass about it. I don't even know eyed, by the way. But he asked if someone else would try to explain to you what he was saying and I felt his frustration due to how ridiculous it is that you couldn't understand his point. As for the MT, please, by all means, stay away. It's a place for people who actually possess powers of comprehension.

hey look another name caller and insulting me, wow how original. oh sweetheart I had bout 12,000 posts in the mt long before you ever came onto this board. Names like my2hands,jlew, currpente, abookamongsthemany, el kabong and hippiemom(r.I.p) were a hell of a lot friendlier to me then you will ever be. But hey thanks for proving my point that the MT has gone to shit, good job :thumbup:.


Btw- I took the SAT'S my senior year for fun and got a 1140

_

metsfan wrote:

scb wrote:

metsfan wrote:

again i was just having a go with him cause he mentioned nyc. seem clear enough now to you. it's cute you feel the need to stick up for your friend :roll: . it's people like you and many others that made me not have the desire to post in the what is called the MT. i''m sure others feel the same way seeing as how the MT is just a big pissing match between board members.

Whatever. :roll: You don't have to act like an ass about it. I don't even know eyed, by the way. But he asked if someone else would try to explain to you what he was saying and I felt his frustration due to how ridiculous it is that you couldn't understand his point. As for the MT, please, by all means, stay away. It's a place for people who actually possess powers of comprehension.

hey look another name caller and insulting me, wow how original. oh sweetheart I had bout 12,000 posts in the mt long before you ever came onto this board. Names like my2hands,jlew, currpente, abookamongsthemany, el kabong and hippiemom(r.I.p) were a hell of a lot friendlier to me then you will ever be. But hey thanks for proving my point that the MT has gone to shit, good job :thumbup:.


Btw- I took the SAT'S my senior year for fun and got a 1140

OK