Example of Bill Zaumen LYING: "Mikey, I'm going to flush the rest of your posts"

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:12:13 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Oh come off it Guy. Everyone knows your tactics


    And yours: make an invalid assertion not supported by evidence, and
    then argue the toss until everyone else is bored and has wandered off.

    >Anyone can pull up these messages and plot a distribution of how
    >many of my messages you replied to versus how many of yours I
    >replied to.


    Correct: I did you the courtesy of reading what you wrote, despite its
    being repetitive and consistently evading any calls for evidence,
    whereas you evaded many of the substantive points put to you. I am at
    a loss to understand why you think that makes you a better person than
    me, but I am at a loss to understand many things about you.

    >some "questions" where just plain silly.)


    Funny how the "silly" ones which got evaded were always "can you
    provide evidence for that?" or "can you prove that?"...

    >> And "flushing" the rest, hence Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
    >> Zaumen.


    >Usually they were flushed in response to such infantile name
    >calling. Anything else Guy says today will get the same
    >treatement - down the tubes.


    Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". As usual.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     


  2. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:41:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
    >
    > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:


    > What does that have to do with the fact that you don't use a cell
    > phone, because you think they are dangerous, even though you are too
    > embarrassed to admit it, because you would be agreeing with
    > ME. Coward.

    ^^^^^^

    Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    cell phone use/non-use is none of his business? That's the funniest
    thing I've heard in a long time.

    BTW, I've seen Mikey in person - he's a little wimp who looks tense
    enough to be scared of his own shadow.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  3. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:38:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    >to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    >there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    >cell phone use/non-use is none of his business?


    Anyone with any experience of Zaumie knows perfectly well that, while
    we are supposed to take his personal experience on trust, any request
    for dangerous traceable personal details like what helmet he wears are
    unwarranted intrusions on his personal life and not to be borne.
    Especially when they are germane to the argument.

    In this case clearly if Bill tells us whether or not he uses a
    cellphone, we will instantly be able to track him to his home and
    replace the aluminium foil with an imitation that doesn't block the
    mind control rays.

    It's really funny watching Mike and Bill slug it out, though, and
    given that neither of them ever admits they are wrong (especially when
    they are) and neither of them ever gives up (especially when they are
    in the wrong) it should go on for a while yet. Keep it up, guys, it's
    cheaper than daytime cable!

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  4. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Jym Dyer <[email protected]> writes:

    > > Guy is almost as bad as Vanderman (the difference, aside from
    > > the selection of newsgroups, is primarily in their choice of
    > > pet peeves).

    >
    > =v= Shades of R*c S*lv*r in b*.tr*nsp*rt*t**n! So, have you
    > tried the a.s.t.h.u.g shuffle?
    > <_Jym_>


    Nope - he's obnoxious, but probably not as dumb as R*c S*lv*r
    (who is thankfully absent for now due to AOL dropping usenet.)

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  5. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:38:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    > >to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    > >there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    > >cell phone use/non-use is none of his business?

    >
    > Anyone with any experience of Zaumie knows perfectly well that, while
    > we are supposed to take his personal experience on trust, any request
    > for dangerous traceable personal details like what helmet he wears are
    > unwarranted intrusions on his personal life and not to be borne.
    > Especially when they are germane to the argument.


    Here's the facts. Guy objected to a statement I made about typical
    helemts. He tried to turn this into a personal discussion about
    what model I used, even though I was not making a claim that mine
    was special in any way.

    Rather than help him with his diversion, I simply told him it was
    none of his business (so he can relate to Vanderman since he uses
    the same tactics.)

    As to Guy's claim about "personal experience on trust", I'll refer you
    to <http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/arrig/> which has a list of some
    first ascents in the Arrigetch Peaks (in the Brooks Range, about 100
    miles north of the Artic Circle.) You'll see me listed on some first
    ascents, plus some pictures of the area. Oh, and here's a random
    picture I found on the web of a peak we climbed on a different trip:
    <http://www.mistyfjordsair.com/images/devilsthumb.jpg>. This adventure
    included sitting out a 9-day storm.

    Now, Guy, what have you ever done?

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  6. Mr_Kingkillaha

    Mr_Kingkillaha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:11:49 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> Anyone with any experience of Zaumie knows perfectly well that, while
    >> we are supposed to take his personal experience on trust, any request
    >> for dangerous traceable personal details like what helmet he wears are
    >> unwarranted intrusions on his personal life and not to be borne.
    >> Especially when they are germane to the argument.


    >Here's the facts. Guy objected to a statement I made about typical
    >helemts. He tried to turn this into a personal discussion about
    >what model I used, even though I was not making a claim that mine
    >was special in any way.


    Well, that's a part of the facts, anyway. The rest of them are as
    follows:

    - Bill claimed that his helmet conferred an aerodynamic advantage
    compared with a bare head
    - to "support" this he cited a study which said that the only standard
    helmet tested was significantly worse than the worst-case unhelmeted
    scenario of unrestrained long hair
    - Bill claimed that his helmet was shaped so as to be better than that
    - Bill then refused to state what type of helmet he wears, on the
    grounds that it's "personal information".

    So, a claim is made which is said to refer to a specific type of
    helmet, but the type of helmet is not identified, thus preventing the
    hypothesis for being tested: we are required to take Bill's word on
    trust, even though it conflicts with the only available evidence.

    Even now he refuses to give this ridiculously trivial piece of
    information! But I think Bill has a serious paranoia problem - he
    even claimed that if he spelled his name forwards in his .sig people
    would combine that with the domain from which he posts and spam him.
    Er, right.

    >Rather than help him with his diversion, I simply told him it was
    >none of his business (so he can relate to Vanderman since he uses
    >the same tactics.)


    As stated above, the information was clearly germane to the argument.
    The archives will show this to be the case if anybody cares enough to
    look.

    >As to Guy's claim about "personal experience on trust", I'll refer you
    >to [blah blah blah]


    And? The fact remains that you expect people to take your experience
    on trust, but refuse to give sufficient data to test whether that
    trust is justified. Whether or not you /invariably/ do this is
    irrelevant, the fact is that you /do/ do it, as documented above.

    >Now, Guy, what have you ever done?


    Read studies before I discuss them? Visited the library? Oh, wait, you
    don't think those things are worth doing...

    So, looking at your example, what you are looking for is something
    notable which is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. I can do
    that: I, Guy Chapman, once shook Yehudi Menuhin's hand. His bow hand,
    at that.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  8. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:11:49 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Here's the facts. Guy objected to a statement I made about typical
    > >helemts. He tried to turn this into a personal discussion about
    > >what model I used, even though I was not making a claim that mine
    > >was special in any way.

    >
    > Well, that's a part of the facts, anyway. The rest of them are as
    > follows:
    >
    > - Bill claimed that his helmet conferred an aerodynamic advantage
    > compared with a bare head
    > - to "support" this he cited a study which said that the only standard
    > helmet tested was significantly worse than the worst-case unhelmeted
    > scenario of unrestrained long hair
    > - Bill claimed that his helmet was shaped so as to be better than that
    > - Bill then refused to state what type of helmet he wears, on the
    > grounds that it's "personal information".


    Here's the reality - I made a comment that you can get a very slight
    reduction in air drag with a helmet, but you would be hard pressed to
    notice it while riding. I cited a report that gave numbers for a
    helmet optimized for drag reduction and a 1980s model that was not
    optimized at all. The 1980s model was only slightly worse than riding
    with no helmet and a normal head of hair (the length of your hair is
    also an important parameter.) Modern, asymmetric helmets would
    naturally fall in the middle - not as good as the best aerodynamic
    designs, but better than ones where air drag wasn't considered at all.

    I also gave other citations confirming this. Guy is trying to restart
    an old argument, but this time on a different set of newsgroups. Guy's
    "facts" have nothing to do with the actual discussion - it is just
    spin.

    <rest of Guy's blather snipped>

    BTW, you'll note who is posting the most text. :)

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  9. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

  10. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:19:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Here's the reality - I made a comment that you can get a very slight
    >reduction in air drag with a helmet, but you would be hard pressed to
    >notice it while riding.


    And then cited a report which said the opposite, yes. And when
    pressed for further evidence you gave a list of links fresh from
    Google which you clearly hadn't read because one had as a starting
    premise the fact that standard helmets *increase* drag.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  11. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:15:16 -0800, "GaryG" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Game, set, match to Mr. Z.


    Or it would be if it wasn't complete bollocks. Check the archive: the
    simple fact is that Bill's only citation showed the opposite of what
    he claimed.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  12. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:19:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >Here's the reality - I made a comment that you can get a very slight
    > >reduction in air drag with a helmet, but you would be hard pressed to
    > >notice it while riding.

    >
    > And then cited a report which said the opposite, yes. And when
    > pressed for further evidence you gave a list of links fresh from
    > Google which you clearly hadn't read because one had as a starting
    > premise the fact that standard helmets *increase* drag.


    It showed data only for a few helmets, with the *one* that had an
    increase in drag by a very slight amount being an older Bell model
    (before the introduction of the newer 'teardrop' shaped helmets.)

    Guy, following the lead of some of the other anti-helmet people
    continually claims I haven't read things, and they have on occassion
    done this when I provided a URL and a quote from that URL that was
    germane to the discussion - it is standard tactic that they use.

    Also, this discussion was beaten to death a few months ago. There is
    no need to repeat it (except for Guy's desire to troll, which is why
    he entered the discussion in the first place.) Let's just drop it -
    anyone who is interested can go back and check the rec.bicycles.soc
    archives in gory detail, although I'm not sure why anyone would
    particularly want to.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  13. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:15:33 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> >Here's the reality - I made a comment that you can get a very slight
    >> >reduction in air drag with a helmet, but you would be hard pressed to
    >> >notice it while riding.


    >> And then cited a report which said the opposite, yes. And when
    >> pressed for further evidence you gave a list of links fresh from
    >> Google which you clearly hadn't read because one had as a starting
    >> premise the fact that standard helmets *increase* drag.


    >It showed data only for a few helmets, with the *one* that had an
    >increase in drag by a very slight amount being an older Bell model
    >(before the introduction of the newer 'teardrop' shaped helmets.)


    Which sounds suspiciously reasonable until you realise that (a) it was
    you who promoted the suggestion of reduced drag, despite it being
    flatly contradicted by the report you cited; and (b) you then went on
    to say that this was true for your helmet, whatever others said about
    theirs (for example, that vented helmets might just as easily have
    much worse aerodynamics than a relatively smooth 1980s model) - and
    then refused to allow your hypothesis to be tested by withholding the
    relevant but otherwise entirely trivial fact of which helmet you wear.

    Oh, and (c) you then posted a whole screed of further "evidence" at
    least one of which turned out to be a report which had *as its
    starting premise* that you were wrong, a premise which the authors
    subsequently considered proven.

    >Guy, following the lead of some of the other anti-helmet people


    Argument by assertion again: I am not anti-helmet, and I can prove it.

    >continually claims I haven't read things,


    Based on your having admitted to it, which seemed like good enough
    grounds at the time. You even gave an excuse: that the library was
    closed that day (July 4). The fact that the report had been out for
    some years reveals it as an excuse rather than a reason. Have you
    read it yet, Bill? I'm betting you haven't.

    >and they have on occassion
    >done this when I provided a URL and a quote from that URL that was
    >germane to the discussion - it is standard tactic that they use.


    Argument by assertion again. You were discussing research based on
    the abstracts, which is fair enough until someone comes along who has
    read the research itself and tells you you are misrepresenting it. At
    that point there are two reasonable options and the Zaumen
    Alternative. The reasonable options are: read it yourself and debate
    from a position of knowledge, or shut up. The Zaumen Alternative is
    bluster and argument based on continuing ignorance.

    >Also, this discussion was beaten to death a few months ago. There is
    >no need to repeat it (except for Guy's desire to troll, which is why
    >he entered the discussion in the first place.)


    I disagree. You have shown that you are prepared to argue from faith
    and dogma, even when contradicted by the facts. I don't discount the
    possibility that you might occasionally know what you're talking
    about, but I will not trust a word you say without independent
    verification. In this respect you are indistinguishable from
    Vandemann, with whom you share so many traits (to say nothing of an
    ISP). That was why I made the initial comment: since both of you use
    the word LIAR as synonymous with "person who disagrees with me" and
    TROLL as synonymous with "person who disagrees with me and provides
    evidence to back it up", to say nothing of neither of you ever giving
    up however often you are shown to be wrong, the idea of the two of you
    having an argument was very amusing. Still is. It's like I imagine
    low-budget daytime cable would be.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  14. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:15:33 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote:
    > >It showed data only for a few helmets, with the *one* that had an
    > >increase in drag by a very slight amount being an older Bell model
    > >(before the introduction of the newer 'teardrop' shaped helmets.)

    >
    > Which sounds suspiciously reasonable until you realise that (a) it was
    > you who promoted the suggestion of reduced drag, despite it being
    > flatly contradicted by the report you cited; <snip>


    It wasn't. As I said, anyone who is interested can look at the archives.
    I'm not going to repeat this discussion with you after you ranted about
    it in hundreds of posts in the last half of last year.

    <rest of this troll's nonsense snipped, and not read - it looks like
    the same old cut and paste job>.



    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  15. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:38:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:

    ..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
    ..
    ..> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:41:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
    ..
    ..> What does that have to do with the fact that you don't use a cell
    ..> phone, because you think they are dangerous, even though you are too
    ..> embarrassed to admit it, because you would be agreeing with
    ..> ME. Coward.
    .. ^^^^^^
    ..
    ..Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    ..to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    ..there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    ..cell phone use/non-use is none of his business? That's the funniest
    ..thing I've heard in a long time.

    I guess you are afraid of something that others aren't afraid of: telling the
    truth. And I'm not the only one saying it.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:38:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
    >
    > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
    > .
    > .> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:41:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
    > .>
    > .> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
    > .
    > .> What does that have to do with the fact that you don't use a cell
    > .> phone, because you think they are dangerous, even though you are too
    > .> embarrassed to admit it, because you would be agreeing with
    > .> ME. Coward.
    > . ^^^^^^
    > .
    > .Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    > .to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    > .there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    > .cell phone use/non-use is none of his business? That's the funniest
    > .thing I've heard in a long time.
    >
    > I guess you are afraid of something that others aren't afraid of: telling the
    > truth. And I'm not the only one saying it.


    Explain <http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/arrig/>, which was compiled
    from articles in the AAJ, and lists me on some first ascents. What
    have you done, other than mouth off on usenet and make a fool of
    yourself?

    The "others" you are refering to, of course is *one* other person, who
    has a grudge against me for not going along with him on another
    topic. Anyone can check the archives and see for themselves, or
    simply look at his current rant, which is bad enough

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  17. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:11:49 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:

    .."Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    ..
    ..> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:38:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    ..> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    ..>
    ..> >Oh, that one is really funny. I've been on mountaineering expeditions
    ..> >to Alaska, climbed a number of Yomemite walls where you are really out
    ..> >there, and this little twirp calls me a "coward" because I think my
    ..> >cell phone use/non-use is none of his business?
    ..>
    ..> Anyone with any experience of Zaumie knows perfectly well that, while
    ..> we are supposed to take his personal experience on trust, any request
    ..> for dangerous traceable personal details like what helmet he wears are
    ..> unwarranted intrusions on his personal life and not to be borne.
    ..> Especially when they are germane to the argument.
    ..
    ..Here's the facts. Guy objected to a statement I made about typical
    ..helemts. He tried to turn this into a personal discussion about
    ..what model I used, even though I was not making a claim that mine
    ..was special in any way.
    ..
    ..Rather than help him with his diversion, I simply told him it was
    ..none of his business (so he can relate to Vanderman since he uses
    ..the same tactics.)
    ..
    ..As to Guy's claim about "personal experience on trust", I'll refer you
    ..to <http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/arrig/> which has a list of some
    ..first ascents in the Arrigetch Peaks (in the Brooks Range, about 100
    ..miles north of the Artic Circle.) You'll see me listed on some first
    ..ascents, plus some pictures of the area.

    It's ironic that you have the courage to climb mountains, but not to tell the
    truth about your personal habits.... You are a sad case.

    Oh, and here's a random
    ..picture I found on the web of a peak we climbed on a different trip:
    ..<http://www.mistyfjordsair.com/images/devilsthumb.jpg>. This adventure
    ..included sitting out a 9-day storm.
    ..
    ..Now, Guy, what have you ever done?

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  18. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:55:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> Which sounds suspiciously reasonable until you realise that (a) it was
    >> you who promoted the suggestion of reduced drag, despite it being
    >> flatly contradicted by the report you cited; <snip>


    >It wasn't.


    Or rather it was. As you say, the whole thing is in the archives.

    ><rest of this troll's nonsense snipped, and not read - it looks like
    >the same old cut and paste job>.


    Once again Bill LIES (is that right, Bill, I have to use all caps?).

    But thanks for proving my point: you and Vandespamm both use "LIAR" to
    mean "person who disagrees" and "TROLL" to mean "person who disagrees
    and provides evidence".

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
     
  19. DecSim

    DecSim Guest

    "You are a sad case."
    Pot, kettle, black. Best case I've seen for a while :)

    ===
    Mike Vandeman The Extremist
    I waste my time harassing mountain bikers and annoying real
    environmentalists and scientists. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting something else but got bored)

    www.geocities.com/mike_vandeman_the_extremist
     
  20. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > It's ironic that you have the courage to climb mountains, but not to tell the
    > truth about your personal habits.... You are a sad case.


    Let's just say I'm perfectly comfortable telling the likes of you that
    something is none of your business (particularly when the "personal
    habits" are not relevant to the discussion in any way, shape, or
    form.)

    And childish name calling on your part is not going to make any
    difference.


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
Loading...
Loading...