Ridiculous reasons or arguments people put forward

[DickyC]

A mammoth was discovered frozen into a glacier. Scientists had trouble examining it because when bits were thawed out they decomposed very quickly. This, a colleague claimed, was why he would never have a freezer.

A fridge to keep things fresh for a few days, yes. A freezer to keep things edible for a few weeks or a few months, no. All because a 200,000 year old mammoth decomposed when thawed.

[soad]

Maybe he can't be bothered to defrost stuff. There's more to it than what he's told you.

[DonnyMac]

Maybe it had decomposed before it got frozen?

[Fishtigua]

Pah, it's never stopped this lot if the meat is a bit iffy.

[g3org3y]

<Insert generic deity> exists because you can't prove she/he/it doesn't.

[Spare tyre]

i bought X car at 10 years old for £250, it was crap - i will never by X brand car again

that sort of thing makes my mind boggle

[austinsmirk]

Ive had an stupid conversion with some yoof in my office as to why his android phone (according to him) is vastly superior to my i phone.

my point being my last I phone 3 GS lasted me 4.5 yrs, was faultless in its operation until the on/off button got funny. there was no reason to actually get a better device as it did what I needed.

I now have a an I phone 5c 16 gb with free mins/calls 4gb, free handset. was 23.99 a mth

his latest HTC something at 40 a mth, with 300 min, limited texts and 2 gb data is vastly superior because its "got a better operating system. its quicker"

my POV is its nearly twice a mth what mine costs. I can see no way how one phone these days is quicker to text than another.

and in 10 years of having had both IOS and android, all my android phones (had loads of works ones) have been rubbish, failing miserably after a while.

oh and if IOS are so bad, why on earth are all these muppets queuing to get them ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I'd never buy a Dacia. You lose 70% of value in the first 3 years compared to 50% on a Porsche.

(overlooking 50% on the Porsche is a hit of £40K whereas 80% on the Dacia is £4200.)

[Jasandjules]

Global Warming is real. Look, this six inch square of land by an air con unit got hotter....

[benedwards64]

g3org3y said:

<Insert generic deity> exists because you can't prove she/he/it doesn't.

Also:


<Insert generic deity> doesn't exist because you can't prove she/he/it does.

[D1ckie]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'd never buy a Dacia. You lose 70% of value in the first 3 years compared to 50% on a Porsche.

(overlooking 50% on the Porsche is a hit of £40K whereas 80% on the Dacia is £4200.)

You are buying the wrong Porsche

[Dr Jekyll]

Talking about a particular make of car that in statistical surveys seemed exceptionally reliable.

'I don't go by statistics, I go by what I see, and of 3 people I know that have them 2 have had problems.'

Another guy makes regular trips from West London up to Liverpool and Glasgow and makes the car vs train vs plane purely on cost. The trouble is he bases his motoring cost calculation on the fact that What Car reckoned his model cost 52p a mile to run. So he'll say 'it's a 400 mile round trip and the plane fare is £180 so there's no point driving.

The flaw in his logic is that the What Car figure is based on total cost for a new car run over 3 years, and his car is 8 years old with 70,000+ on the clock.

I've tried to explain that the 52p a mile is largely made up of depreciation and his car is depreciating far more slowly, so the real cost of driving it as opposed to leaving it standing taxed and insured on the driveway is a fraction of this. But he just can't see it.

[DickyC]

DonnyMac said:

Maybe it had decomposed before it got frozen?

We tried him with all those arguments. He just wouldn't have it. But, then, this was the bloke who condemned any artifice among his fellow man and yet had a tattoo and a comb over. The tattoo he explained with, "Everyone had one when I had it done," but the comb over no one ever had the balls to quiz him about. This, despite it standing out perpendicular from his head like a shelf for a carriage clock in anything stronger than a gentle breeze.

[Crush]

Jasandjules said:

Global Warming is real. Look, this six inch square of land by an air con unit got hotter....

[mike-r]

austinsmirk said:

oh and if IOS are so bad, why on earth are all these muppets queuing to get them ?

Muppets being the operative word I imagine. I do agree though, had my iPhone for years and its been flawless so I'd take that over the latest and greatest.

I had a recovery driver tell me about the UK's most reliable car based on the amount he has to recover. Apparently the most unreliable vehicle is a 5-series and the most reliable is any kind of Mitsubishi. Probably true but the basis was fairly inane, how many Mitsubishis do you actually see on the road compared to BMWs?

[Impasse]

mike-r said:

austinsmirk said:

oh and if IOS are so bad, why on earth are all these muppets queuing to get them ?

Muppets being the operative word I imagine. I do agree though, had my iPhone for years and its been flawless so I'd take that over the latest and greatest.

But then Android stuff isn't exactly rubbish either - just different to Apple. The fanboy frothing over both types is worthy of its own entry into a Thread of Cringe.

[can't remember]

austinsmirk said:

Ive had an stupid conversion with some yoof in my office as to why his android phone (according to him) is vastly superior to my i phone.

my point being my last I phone 3 GS lasted me 4.5 yrs, was faultless in its operation until the on/off button got funny. there was no reason to actually get a better device as it did what I needed.

I now have a an I phone 5c 16 gb with free mins/calls 4gb, free handset. was 23.99 a mth

his latest HTC something at 40 a mth, with 300 min, limited texts and 2 gb data is vastly superior because its "got a better operating system. its quicker"

my POV is its nearly twice a mth what mine costs. I can see no way how one phone these days is quicker to text than another.

and in 10 years of having had both IOS and android, all my android phones (had loads of works ones) have been rubbish, failing miserably after a while.

oh and if IOS are so bad, why on earth are all these muppets queuing to get them ?

Just to clarify, you were arguing the toss with a kid in the office over who had the best phone/contract?

[mph1977]

Impasse said:

mike-r said:

austinsmirk said:

oh and if IOS are so bad, why on earth are all these muppets queuing to get them ?

Muppets being the operative word I imagine. I do agree though, had my iPhone for years and its been flawless so I'd take that over the latest and greatest.

But then Android stuff isn't exactly rubbish either - just different to Apple. The fanboy frothing over both types is worthy of its own entry into a Thread of Cringe.

in 1984 apple made a game changing decision and have been riding on the back of that the the reputations of the Wizard of Woz and the Cu*t of Jobs ever since

classic Mac vs DOS was a gamechanger

classic mac /PPC mac vs Win 3.11 over dos was still a league ahead

windows post W95 reached the point for the uninterested consumer when it worked out the box like the classic Mac did, if you area 'man in a shed' with an interest in under the lid of computers you variously
1. have a *nix box
2.use a Win/ Mac for your usual office / web / email uses and play with raspberry pi and/or arduino
3.use a Win/ Mac for your usual office / web / email uses and play with Amateur radio ? packet / Amateur TV etc
4. Have retrocomputing interests and depending on your retro interests run win / mac alongside for office / web. email ( some of the later retro computing kit can live on the 'net e.g. the RiscPC era Acorns, the later amigas ridin on the coattails of Mac / workstation tech ( O40 - 060 - ppc)

[Impasse]

Exactly. Stuff like that.

[northwest monkey]

mph1977 said:

in 1984 apple made a game changing decision and have been riding on the back of that the the reputations of the Wizard of Woz and the Cu*t of Jobs ever since

classic Mac vs DOS was a gamechanger

classic mac /PPC mac vs Win 3.11 over dos was still a league ahead

windows post W95 reached the point for the uninterested consumer when it worked out the box like the classic Mac did, if you area 'man in a shed' with an interest in under the lid of computers you variously
1. have a *nix box
2.use a Win/ Mac for your usual office / web / email uses and play with raspberry pi and/or arduino
3.use a Win/ Mac for your usual office / web / email uses and play with Amateur radio ? packet / Amateur TV etc
4. Have retrocomputing interests and depending on your retro interests run win / mac alongside for office / web. email ( some of the later retro computing kit can live on the 'net e.g. the RiscPC era Acorns, the later amigas ridin on the coattails of Mac / workstation tech ( O40 - 060 - ppc)

Yes, this is correct. I disagree.