Hangover(s) = No post

For once the title sums up my thoughts

More comments for my posts have definitely brought acceptance in society but the fact that all 4 comments were made from the one person/e-identity suggests only no-life people read (and post for that matter)

Will endeavour to continue this thing when I have some "logic"

-Adam

En-Phantomation...Why bother?

To those already questioning the made up word 'phantomation' think of it as two words in one: phantom (Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.) and ation (Action or process). Additionally, when the term 'en' is inserted, this action or process is apparently inflicted upon someone/thing else. The rest of the title you can figure out for yourself including its applicability to my previous post.

So in reply to a particular 'Scribbler', my post was rudimentary for the sole reason of establishing good foundations - I particularly liked how you touched on my audience being next to none - because the basics, especially politically as I am not a political person, allow for evolution of sophistication. I do however share your thoughts because of the applicability to the issue at hand; it would have been much more simpler if I had mentioned my view on abolishing speed limits up front. Additionally, paragraph structure has been edited - although I did warn all of its lengthiness, a suitable structure would help

To this extent, I would metaphorically like to 'grind to a halt' all issues relating to speeding in society temporarily and suggest the new age Safe Speeding - The abolishment of speeding being against the law and the introduction of acceleration laws. A quick google search for any similar thoughts was diminished by the niche market, so as to speak, I had catastrophically created - not one person, according to Google's first few pages of results after entering Speeding vs Acceleration, has created a website to publish their views.

I find that the following quote sums up my research into the field nicely (but also annoyingly as it has taken such time whilst this website has held empirical research for some time!):
"As such speed variance and not average travel speed influences the level of crash involvement. If all the traffic was flowing at 140-150 km/h the risk of a crash would be alot less than the traffic flowing at 105 km/h with several drivers weaving through the traffic at 140 km/h."
The quote above was simply extracted, without breaching Copyright I hope, from the Safe Drive Training institute that has offices in several countries - http://www.sdt.com.au excusing the potentially immature partial-dyslexism 'The Scribbler'- however I would like to make special note of the fact that the site in which I have used as basis of my research today, has not got a hyperlink to it from the main homepage (or from any page under the domain sdt.com.au for that matter); possibly suggesting that such a reputable organisation does not want the public to know the truth behind speeding.

More so,
"Some research has shown that travelling 20 km/h slower than the surrounding traffic is just as dangerous as travelling 40 km/h faster. In fact low speed drivers are more likely to cause and be involved in an accident than high speed drivers. This has led to a call for both minimum and maximum speed limits to be set and enforced!"
Although not quite at my conclusion, a deviated but similar justification of the fallacy Speeding Kills is evident 'out there' already. Although titles are over-rated in my view, the title of the page includes "THE FACTS" suggesting that the truth has possibly been clouded by intervention of a 3rd party.

"Dr. Ingo Kallina the head of safety research for Mercedes Benz has found "no link between speed and injury outcome..."
"In Germany we have autobahns with unlimited speed and they are the safest"
"A recent study by the British Transport Laboratory has found that excessive speed was a factor in fewer than 5% of more than 3000 traffic accidents analysed. Driving associations in Britain are in uproar as these findings were ignored by the government that went onto speed £ 34 million on the "Kill your Speed" campaign launched in January 1999."

I am still to officially suggest this radical change to the appropriate authorities however I would like people to show their support/agreement in any form (by email, by comments on this/last post etc.) - I do not believe in rallies/protests nor will I ever result in such a manner for this cause.

In summing up, my ammendments would look something like this:
1. Acceleration limits are more important than Speed Limits - note the word selection
2. Both maximum and minimum values would be put into place varying on road conditions
3. Advertising of both the old and new protocols be rationed for simplicity and correct resource allocation
4. More to follow!!!!

-Adam

Titleless - the paradoxical claim

I have taken my thoughts, with origins from a dream I believe, and taken them one step further...thought about them more. You see it is one thing to think [arguably possible in terms of cognitive ability] and another thing to think more intensely.

Now that my daily 'useless thought' has been opened up on the World Wide Web, I can now begin my actual post - Safe Speeding...There is such a thing. I am sure the Australian Police Force have propagandised most inhabitants of Australia with the ever-so catchy slogan aimed at society 'Safe Speeding...There's no such thing' but is it really worth it; and better still, is there such a thing as safe speeding in the first place? However, I can honestly warn people of the lengthiness of this post as I have been researching the issue for some time and the subsequent bias that may follow leaning towards Victoria and Queensland (reasons to follow), whilst not making me an expert though of course!!

Budget Surplus = Stupid Government not spending money on infrastructure, or better still, advertising to slow motorists?. My aim now is not to persuade ones political views of right/wrong nor to persuade one into voting for, let's say, One Nation Party but simply to indicate a claim from the majority of Australia that since we have money to splash around where is the harm - evident in the Speeding Kills campaign(s)? The cost of speeding-related accidents across Australia, even magnifyed to a State Level cost, has been splashed across websites, newspapers, radio, and other forms of media but they don't seem to announce that often how much the campaigns actually cost.

Personally, I have been involved in an accident INVOLVING (not due to) speeding as the driver and have paid the sonsequences - wasn't focused on the road myself but on my radio channel (of which you can only guess the frequency is!) and before I know it the orange signal had changed to red resulting in a delayed braking; of which costed me 3 demerit points, $50000 odd worth of damage to my father's BMW 535i, and the worst cost of all...pyscholgical trauma. I cannot go past the area at which the 3-car-accident occured without flashbacks to the incident, nor can I bear the possibility of the accident occuring ag ain - 1st car was written off so the driver was saying at the time and 2nd car was to be repaired but the time lost at work, supposedly, had just lost the respective driver his job. The reason why I am telling you this is because I am not a sadistic being that wants people to speed so there is more fatalities on the roads of Australia but because, with experience in the 'other side of the argument', so as to speak, I aim to speak independently free from vilification. Although the incident had speeding as a mitigating circumstance, so they would say if the Police was even remotely interested in my speed at the time, the 'direct' reason was lack of concentration particularly at an intersection.

Now, it might be time to move onto the cost of the incidents themselves whilst they are, metaphorically of course, coming out of my ears - "Each year speed related crashes cost Australia in excess of $1 billion." http://www.sdt.com.au/SPEEDTHEFACTS.htm, "Speed-related crashes cost the community [Queensland] approximately A$180 million per year..." http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/printable/rs_campaigns_speeding, " The estimated cost to the community of speed-related crashes is about $500 million a year." http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/advertisingcampaigns/speeding.html - to name a few

Moving ahead, I would now like to discuss lingo used by the RTA and other advertisement making bodies all over the country utilise (please e-mail me ommitted jingles that, at the very least, were made post-1987):
1. Safe Speeding...There's no such thing (or word order differences)
2. Speeding Kills
3. Every (k) over is a killer
4. Please, slow down
5. High Speed. Low IQ
6. ...5 k's difference up there makes 27 k's difference down here
7. "I don't think there's anything wrong with it"..."I [certainly] don't think it's dangerous"..."[Look] I'm a pretty good driver"..."I can't see how doing 10 or 15k over makes any difference"..."She doesn't want your excuses"
8. The negatives of speeding...You kill...You maim...You disable...You disfigure...No positives...Just nightmares...Forever...Expect the worst
9. Exceed the limit by any amount [and] expect the worst
10. Slow down...Stick to the limit
11. The faster you go the longer it takes to stop
12. Has your car got a nut loose at the wheel
13. Speed camera z(60)ne
14. 50km/h on local streets will save lives

To this extent I would like to commend you on your efforts of reading thus far and I shall hopefully conclude this issue of calamities & ideologies in tomorrows edition...good-well deserved on my part-morning!
-Adam

More bang for your buck?

1 for $5.50
2 for $6.00

To put it simply - these prices were (and still are; might as well give it a buzz!) applicable to mini-thermoses at the Supershow. It does raise the question of what the shop keepers are on/not on and if the sellers actually know the rrp. I am not here to question the actual price of the thermoses however I simply wanted to bring this up to give a minute insight into my disgust (or whinge :P) of how people mark-up prices. With a current interest in Sociology (because I am engaged in the discipline at University), the Marxist capitalist view has now been raised and conflict is clearly evident. Just a quick comment for readers, if there are any yet.

-Adam

Untitled due to complexities!?

First of all, my titles are, and will awlays be, lame. Title creation is not my profession nor is it an interest of mine - excuse them if you find them inappropriate.

To begin today's entry, as if this blog is a personal diary, I would like to make it know that yesterday's uninformative entry was due to insomnia and, quoting National Geographic Channel's 'random fact' (although not labelled that), sleep deprivation because such disorders lead to "abnormal brain function". To this extent, I would like to reassure readers, if any, that my cognitive ability seems to be normal at the time of writing this post.

Now, with all defects and preface(s) aside, todays post is to do with whinging itself. A whinge, when spelt correctly is defined by the infamous American Heritage Dictionary (because of the generic dictionary.com URL) as To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner. Now with this said, the English dictionary is a circular fallacy, as taught in first year Philosophy, and so I cannot go further in the pursuit of a proper meaning of whinge. Now with this futilistic comment aside, I whinge a lot in my life because I have established a nice meaning of life; to find flaws. Pessimistic some might say but I think otherwise. My whinging has been brought out, to the best of my knowledge, because life has screwed me over numerous times. Today, I even have a whinge whereby I cannot whinge about Triple M's 'Spoonman' segment tonight - for the first time in my life the 'Spoonman' as the character portrays himself to be over radio gave a two-sided view of Wimbledon's latest controversy. It has been to much upheval that Wimbledon unequally pays out prize money due to gender - more for men by AUD$70000+ My view is men should be paid more just for the sake of an argument (as it is the only Grand Slam tournament I show great affection for) to which, although denied, The Spoonman is the same - couldn't give a damn but brought it up to appear using airtime 'efficiently'. It is without hesitation that I rest my case in Spoonman's role in Triple M's airtime all day everyday is to instigate arguments from his very nature. I do hope this post has now covered more ground than the last post!

-Adam

What is Preference?

I would like to begin the birth of my new blog with a question for all interested - where does the boundary of preference begin and end?

To place a sexual affiliation, I am a virgin at blog upkeep and am always open to suggestions (and now with my first post's abstract, I shall begin my view...)

Preference is somewhat affiliated with a highly intensified notion of what it means to choose something over something else. Now to simplify matters, overused-pronumerals X & Y shall be used to illustrate choice.
X is a possibility of interest for the subject and Y is as EQUALLY a possibility of interest. However a being should be endeavouring to isolate a possibility and choose it to be of interest for reasons none other than to see life move on. With X & Y (excuse the title of Coldplay's new album) as options, why does this subject need to choose; what is the compelling nature of these 2 futilistic terms that life cannot proceed without? But the problem is I don't know the damn answer to my own rhetorical question!

Political Preference
Sexual Preference
Economic Preference
Career Preference
Friendship Preference
[Any word] Preference
I am not here to bombard readers with all the different preferences life has in store for us but to inform all that life has created so many dillusions for me that I, personally, struggle with the meaning of life - to bluntly put my mental stability

-Adam