In article <
[email protected]>,
usenet-
[email protected] says...
> But to get back to the original topic of this thread, and
> what rattled my cage. Paul's asserts his opinion - his
> belief that his bonnet saved you-know-what, and didn't
> bother to offer any reasons to support that assertion.
>
Well, I was going to resist, but to be honest whats on the
telly is ****. I think I moderated my assertation in a later
post to say that I was probably being melodramatic and
although I can't prove it, I beleive that it saved me a lot
of added discomfort. The helmet didn't break (it was a hard
shelled Etto) but as I had landed on my head after falling
of the bike at approx 30mph and was rended unconsious, I
desided to bin it.
> Fine, that's his opinion, and it's his prerogative to
> express his opinion - no problem - but personally, my
> preference is to participate in a discussion group rather
> than an opinion poll.
>
All discussions will explore peoples opinions. If all have
the same opinion, the little discusion will take place. In
this case, some people agree with some of what I said, some
don't. That I would have expected, as I'm sure would you.
> Paul writes "I will think you a fool if you don't wear
> one" - well , I don't wear one and if he condones
> calling bonnetless bicyclists "fools" then I say - more
> fool you, Paul.
>
> Calling other cyclists fools, idiots or whatever, is
> childish and arrogant and hardly dignifying - should we
> just give up debating the issue like intelligent adults
> and succumb to puerile primitiveness - calling others,
> whom we disagree with, fools? A exchange of insults is
> hardly edifying is it?
>
Ok, is it the word fool you object to here. I could have
said unwise, or misguided, or that I feel that you are
taking unnessesary risks. But I feel it is foolish not to
wear a helmet on a bicycle, ergo... I noticed that you also
sniped the sentence to give it more impact, but hey, this is
a public forum...
> I took issue with Paul's spouting off about stats because
> it had the appearance of a pre-emptive strike at what is
> one of the main rebuttals to his personal subjective
> opinion/belief - objective facts in the form of
> descriptive statistics (nothing complicated or overly
> esoteric here).
>
> For sure, stats get used, misused and abused - but that's
> no reason to support a blanket dismissal for their use -
> rather it's a good reason to become more statistically
> literate - and you don't need to be a rocket scientist (it
> is a school subject, after all) to have a reasonable
> handle on their use (and abuse).
>
My belife in the misuse of stats is is totally unconected
with my views on helmet wearing, other than to say that
stats can be presented in support in either side of the
argument, offten drawn from the same data. Yes, basic data
handling is taught in schools, but the stats I seen presnted
daily in support of this that or the other, rarely get
presented in an unambguous manner. With almost all public
presented stats it is possible to ask 'but what about...'
And I would suggest that you doing yourself down if you
believe that your level of understanding of stats is the
average. I would suggest that most peoples understanding of
stats is ona par with my grasp of spelling!
> In summary, Pauls' soapbox spiel on statistics is, IMHO,
> an intellectually insipid attempt to curtail or prevent
> criticism (by the use of stats) of his pernicious
> prejudice.
>
Not at all, come forth and discuss. I have my opinions,
you have yours. Mine are not set in stone, and if you can
be bothered, if you prove me wrong, I'll change my
opinions. (I'll have to look up pernicious, but I think I
get the gist)
> Was his post nothing more than a dog whistle - calling the
> faithful believers to the ready?
>
Some would have said it was a troll. But it prompted
discussion on a descussion board. That can't be a bad
thing, can it?
> Roger
>
>
--
.paul
If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.