I thought he was the one that was all about shooting people on the side of the road that did not agree with him?
Er two points. 1) It's Godwins law and I wasn't actually about to invoke it and 2) The expression 'taking <insert appropriate victim> to the side of the road to be shot', is ahem ironical here in the largely gun free UK, so agreed I perhaps was a tad remiss in once more making shared language assumptions.. Nobody here would really like to see the man taken to the side of the road and actually shot, it's black humour, something lots of snowflakes don't get. Didn't have you down as a Snowflake, lots of other things maybe, but not totally without life experience.Matteo V wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:59 pmI thought he was the one that was all about shooting people on the side of the road that did not agree with him?
I was going to let you prattle on - bringing up politics, ad hominem arguments, and the general thing you are known for. And I support your freedom to say it. But when a person, who has enjoyed the benefits of living in western society, starts calling for people to be shot on the side of the road - I feel that I have to point out the hypocrisy of that. But most importantly, I have to ask you, do you know where your line of thinking leads? (hint: human history)
But then again, the new "Goodwins Law", substitutes the former person focused on, for a more current figure. So I guess I can't blame you for bringing it up. It was inevitable. Lets just hope that repeating some of the darker times of our history is not "just as inevitable". So since you rolled so far off the rails, does that mean I get a bitter victory. Or do you have something to say about my position that you can back up with more than off topic rants?
"The backside of dark lenses will act as a mirror to the person wearing the sunglasses and they will have to fight all the ill effects that those reflections causes "Matteo V wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:42 am
1-It does not "have to have anti- reflective" as most of the sunglasses wearing world gets along fine without. That is your first lie. The idea that there is even an urgent need for anti-reflective in a single lens non-magnifying pair of sunglasses is absurd.
2-"7x more comfort"? You have got to think people are complete idiots here. Not only is this a ridiculous claim, but I love the "ghost images" thing! Are you saying that when you are wearing regular polarized sunglasses with no AR on them, you see 'dead people'? Frikin absolutely hilarious. So you get off at least one more lie, while the other one could possibly be citing a BS marketing study. Thus for that one, you get off with maybe only exaggeration, but more likely you know you are citing someone else's lie.
3-And polarized lenses do not eliminate 100% of the blinding glare. They only eliminate the "blinding glare" in the same plane as the polarization. That is your 3rd lie. And this is where we get into why many of us who have enjoyed the benefits of polarized glasses in other outdoor sports, have found polarized sunglasses to be a liability in the waves.
4-And here is another dose of reality! Prescription eyeglasses, ACTUAL PRESCRIPTION EYEGLASSES, cost less than the stuff you are peddling. And if you look up prescription eye-wear frames, they are one of the highest markup consumer purchases as well. So you are telling me that for a few pieces of plastic, not even customized for my vision, I NEED to pay $200 because......um......muh....coatings?
5-I have got to say that you actually are somehow leading on a few forum participants here. Some seem to be swallowing your "marketing" tactics. I have done what I can, but in the end, it is up to them to decide whether to blow $200 while desperately trying to convince themselves that they did the right thing, or wake up and realize that high end sunglasses are a complete waste of money.
Ask the Indians in the actual country called India where I believe it hit 45 degrees today in an unprecedented heat wave.
By me stating that the "new Godwins law" (thanks for that spelling correction cappy!) has substituted someone else for the original subject person, I was kind of thinking of you directly. In fact, it seems that "Matteo's Law" could be that "for any given kite forum thread that goes on long enough, cappy will jump in with virtually nothing to contribute".
Oh SH-T! You are in the UK? Then writing what you wrote on a forum, is actually illegal. And look up the difference between "humour" and humor. - just returning the spelling check favor.
That my unforunate chap is just what happens to a perfectly good language when you loan it to a bunch of religious fanatics and the irish to go off and inbreed with.
Ya know cappy, I am going to be guilty of going waaaaayyyyy off topic here, but this is on my bucket list. I have always wanted to ask a Brit where the hell is the "f" in Lieutenant? Any other words like it in the British dialect of English? - hehe!
Users browsing this forum: omg and 32 guests