How Not To Do It

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just zis Guy, you know?, Feb 5, 2005.

  1. Dave Fawthrop wrote:
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > | Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
    > | don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.
    >
    > Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
    > Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.
    >



    By that bonkers "logic", you should be aiming your criticism at those
    who don't cycle and have a massive probability of health problems rather
    than non-helmeted cyclists who have an exceedingly tiny risk of head
    injury[1].

    [1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
    helmeted cyclists.
     


  2. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Dave Fawthrop wrote:
    > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > | Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then

    providing I
    > > | don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the

    risk.
    > >
    > > Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die,

    the
    > > Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.
    > >

    >
    >
    > By that bonkers "logic", you should be aiming your criticism at those
    > who don't cycle and have a massive probability of health problems rather
    > than non-helmeted cyclists who have an exceedingly tiny risk of head
    > injury[1].
    >
    > [1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
    > helmeted cyclists.


    Don't confuse him with facts.
     
  3. "Tony W" <[email protected]>typed



    > >
    > > [1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
    > > helmeted cyclists.


    > Don't confuse him with facts.



    This week's BMJ has a neat little study showing slightly fewer head
    injuries in skiers/snowboarders with helmets and slightly more neck
    injuries in the helmeted group...

    Of course, snow sports take place in a cool environment and most
    participants aren't working against gravity...

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
    Edgware.
     
  4. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed Guest

    "Dave Fawthrop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > | Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing
    > I
    > | don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the
    > risk.
    >
    > Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die,
    > the
    > Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.
    >
    > --
    > Dave F


    But he might end up as a cabbage *because* he has his helmet on, thus
    causing us the additional payments you are so concerned about, since there
    must be a range of accident conditions for which death would occur without a
    helmet, but cabbage existence with one. I presume you wont have any evidence
    to show whether helmet or not-helmet would result in a larger preponderance
    of cabbage-ness? Until you can produce it, your argument is therefore,
    technically, complete bollocks.

    --
    Tumbleweed

    email replies not necessary but to contact use;
    tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
     
  5. nobody

    nobody Guest

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:37:21 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote
    >in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>[email protected]

    >
    >If you publish an address like [email protected] then it is quite
    >likely that the owner of [email protected] will start to receive a
    >lot of spam. It is very irresponsible to publish [email protected]
    >in this way, and I hope that [email protected] is not deluged with
    >spam as a result.
    >


    Probably not. AFAIK, email harvesting programs look at the
    message headers for the addresses, rather than the bodies.
    Avoids the pesky download overhead...

    Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
    around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
    non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
    into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.
     
  6. nobody

    nobody Guest

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:12:38 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    >
    >Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
    >around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
    >non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
    >into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.


    Here we go!


    [email protected]
     
  7. JLB

    JLB Guest

    Dave Fawthrop wrote:
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > | Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
    > | don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.
    >
    > Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
    > Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.
    >

    And if that happens playing rugby, or climbing up a mountain, or from a
    fall getting out of the bath, or any one of countless different causes,
    the NHS "aka the rest of us" pays up. The NHS is paid for out of
    taxation as a national system to spread the cost of health care across
    every taxpayer. That's how insurance operates. Private health insurance
    is basically the same: those who need treatment are subsidised by those
    who have paid for cover without needing to claim.

    So, your point is?

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
     
  8. On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:19:59 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:12:38 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    >>
    >>Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
    >>around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
    >>non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
    >>into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

    >
    >Here we go!
    >
    >
    >[email protected]


    Shall we all send forged emails to him asking if he wants to buy
    viagra? ;-)
     
  9. Mark McNeill

    Mark McNeill Guest

    Response to JLB:
    > And if that happens playing rugby, or climbing up a mountain, or from a
    > fall getting out of the bath, or any one of countless different causes,
    > the NHS "aka the rest of us" pays up.
    >


    Not to mention not taking enough exercise, not eating your five portions
    of veg a day, eating too much sugar, all the other dumb things everybody
    does which are on balance more likely to result in years of being a
    burden to the state.

    Given the paucity of evidence that cycle helmets will do more good than
    harm, it seems perverse to pick on them; but as so often, it depends on
    which portion of the moral high ground one wishes to occupy. ;-)

    --
    Mark, UK.

    "I like also the men who study the Great Pyramid, with a view to
    deciphering its mystical lore. Many great books have been
    written on this subject, some of which have been presented to me
    by their authors. It is a singular fact that the Great Pyramid
    always predicts the history of the world accurately up to the
    date of publication of the book in question, but after that date
    it becomes less reliable."
     
  10. On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:59:33 +0000, Mike Causer
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> I understand it is the work of a lone zealot, and not really an official
    >> WHO site.


    >However the real WHO are in favour of them...
    > "... and overwhelming evidence in favour of bicycle helmet programmes..."


    I detect the dead hand of the lone zealot in there - his name is
    Graitcer, as Tony noted above. I would like to see how they count
    Australia and New Zealand as "overwhelmingly" in favour of helmet
    initiatives, since their transportation safety bodies now admit the
    laws are irrelevant as a road safety measure ;-)

    > "Who are the road users most likely to be injured in crashes?
    > ... for each kilometer travelled on a road in the European Union, a
    > person on a bicycle is eight times more likely to be killed than a
    > person in a car..."


    Ah yes, let's just conveniently forget about the pedestrians shall we?
    And indeed the cause of the injuries...

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
     
  11. On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >"Requiring helmet wearing - by law - is an effective strategy to increase
    >helmet use and to reduce death and injury".


    Looks lie an excellent example of the "complex question" logical
    fallacy to me ;-)

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
     
  12. On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:24:43 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
    >Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.


    And if it happens because you were taking more risks because you were
    wearing a helmet?

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
     
  13. Dave Fawthrop <[email protected]> writes:

    >On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    >wrote:


    >| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
    >| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.


    >Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
    >Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.


    If this is what you're worried about, then you'd have to show that
    helmets don't make this worse by turning what would have been nice
    clean kills without helmets into cabbages. After all, if they do any
    good at all, then they must do that some of the time. The question is
    how the statistics balance out, and the answer is far from obvious.
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  14. Tony Raven wrote:

    > Be fair, it does say you should not wear the helmet so as to obstruct
    > your vision. I'm sure its important that kids know not to strap it on
    > the front of their face.


    Unless they want to look like Jason Voorhees and scare the bejeesus out
    of their friends, when it might be quite effective.
     
  15. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Dave Fawthrop
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > | Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then
    > | providing I don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether
    > | to carry the risk.
    >
    > Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you
    > die, the Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for
    > your care.


    Just as we do if he does wear a helmet. And seeing that the evidence is
    that helmets do not make any difference at all to serious injury rates,
    it seems to me he's perfectly entitled to make his choice.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
    ;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
    ;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
    ;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous
     
  16. Al C-F

    Al C-F Guest

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:03:09 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:24:43 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
    >>Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

    >
    >And if it happens because you were taking more risks because you were
    >wearing a helmet?


    ....they say it was his own stupid fault and let him die...
     
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    "Tumbleweed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >

    Until you can produce it, your argument is therefore,
    > technically, complete bollocks.


    ever so slightly ot, but possibly amusing: came across a new word definition
    the other day "testiculating" defined as waving your arms and talking
    bollocks.
     
  18. Tim

    Tim Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Richard Bates wrote:
    > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:19:59 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:12:38 +0000, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    >>>
    >>>Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
    >>>around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
    >>>non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
    >>>into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

    >>
    >>Here we go!
    >>
    >>
    >>[email protected]

    >
    > Shall we all send forged emails to him asking if he wants to buy
    > viagra? ;-)


    Surely you mean v14gr4? :)
    --
    Tim.
     
Loading...