Not Recommending Frame Builders

you know? said:

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:50:05 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Its like the whole h*lmet debate - 'We don't think we should have to
wear one,therefore no one should.'

I think you will find that it is the pro-helmet lobby, not the
sceptics, who seek to force their decision on others, including by
advocating legislation.

Do feel free to cite any people on this newsgroup who have advocated a
law banning helmet use.

Guy

Well ,well - Guy's back defending all you poor mindless fools who
can't defend yourselves from that bullying Duck !

Bless him, he's tried to bring up a relevant point for once to attempt
to disprove accusations of trolling,but his habit of following me
around and hijacking other people's arguments to have a go at me has
been repeated here.
So close,but no cigar,I'm afraid.

you know? said:

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:50:05 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Its like the whole h*lmet debate - 'We don't think we should have to
wear one,therefore no one should.'

I think you will find that it is the pro-helmet lobby, not the
sceptics, who seek to force their decision on others, including by
advocating legislation.

Do feel free to cite any people on this newsgroup who have advocated a
law banning helmet use.

Guy

And before you start crying about me not answering the point,re-read
my quote -

"We don't think we should have to wear one,therefore no one should"

I can't see any referrence to a ban on helmet use. You must be up to
mischief again , you naughty old tr*ll !

The Nottingham Duck said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its like the whole h*lmet debate - 'We don't think we should have to
wear one,therefore no one should.'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you will find that it is the pro-helmet lobby, not the
sceptics, who seek to force their decision on others, including by
advocating legislation.

Quoted message said:

And before you start crying about me not answering the point,re-read
my quote -
"We don't think we should have to wear one,therefore no one should"
I can't see any referrence to a ban on helmet use. You must be up to
mischief again , you naughty old tr*ll !

No, you disputatious idiot, I am pointing out that the group which is
characterised by seeking to force its judgment on others is the
pro-helmet lobby, not the sceptics. Most sceptics are quite happy to
live and let live.

In other words, your example was the wrong way round: it should have
been "it's like the whole helmet debate - 'we wear one, therefore
everyone should'"

Guy

The Nottingham Duck said:

Well ,well - Guy's back defending all you poor mindless fools who
can't defend yourselves from that bullying Duck !

Well well, the disputatious idiot is so arrogant that he believes he is
enough of a threat that anybody posting against him is doing so in order
to defend others who, he believes, lack the titanic intellect necessary
to debate successfully with him.

Sad.

Guy

JohnB said:

Quoted message said:

Don't forget that some of the most voval people in the anti-compulsion
wossnames often wear helmets themselves.

Quoted message said:

Yes, damn irritating that - they go around advertising that cycling is
dangerous, whilst pronouncing otherwise :-(

Not necessarily. The foundation stone of the compulsion movement is
that *all* cycling is *inherently* dangerous. Wearing a lid some of the
time is acknowledging that in some circumstances there might be greater
some danger. I quite understand why someone riding singletrack might
want one, for example, and I have been known to wear one when the first
drizzle of Windyrain lifts the diesel and rubber particles out of the
blacktop.

Carrying an umbrella does not proclaim absolute certainty that it will
rain...

Guy

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

The same could be said of recumbents, mountain bikes, BMXs, monocoque
bikes, compact frames and certain Cannondale road bikes.

Quoted message said:

Speaking as a Cannondale owner and self-confessed Cannondale fan, this is
pure marketing [censored]. Yes, you can build up a Cannondale frame into a
complete bike that will tip the scales under the UCI weight limit. But,
guess what? You can build up any of the other good racing frame-makers
frames to come under the UCI weight limit, too.

Simon, Simon, Simon. Why spoil a good argument by bringing facts into
it? ;-)

Guy

Ian Blake NoNotMe@NotAnywhere said:

Raleigh certainly made some comparitively poor bikes at the end. On
the other hand Raleigh Special Products made some of the very best
stuff.

I think this is likely true. the 1980s were scarcely the heyday of
British light engineering, after all.

I had many Raliegh bikes in my youth, all were built like brick
outhouses. Good, solid, reliable, unexciting. I never rode the Royale
or any of the other lightweights.

Mind you, the Raleigh-built Moultons were [censored].

Guy

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy, you know?

(') said:

JohnB said:

Quoted message said:

Don't forget that some of the most voval people in the
anti-compulsion wossnames often wear helmets themselves.

Quoted message said:

Yes, damn irritating that - they go around advertising that cycling is
dangerous, whilst pronouncing otherwise :-(

Not necessarily. The foundation stone of the compulsion movement is
that *all* cycling is *inherently* dangerous. Wearing a lid some of
the time is acknowledging that in some circumstances there might be
greater
some danger. I quite understand why someone riding singletrack might
want one

Errrmmm... somebody riding rocky singletrack in the rain (as I was this
morning) might well want to wear a helmet (as I did this morning but I'd
forgotten it) because they know they're quite likely to fall off (as I,
of course, did this morning (but only twice[1])). But they also know
that they're unlikely to be hit by a ton of metal doing 60mph, and that
the risk of serious injury is slight. In other words, an incident is
quite likely, but any incident which does happen will be within the
design parameters of a normal bicycle helmet.

Whereas someone riding on the road (as I was yesterday) knows that the
chances of falling off are very small indeed, and the chances of being
hit by a ton or more of metal doing 60mph are close to equal those. In
other words, any incident at all is very very unlikely, but any incident
that does occur has a 50/50 chance of being waaaaaaaay outside the
parameters where a helmet can offer any protection.

Whether you choose to wear one, of course, is entirely up to you.

[1] and despite having fallen off certainly thousands of times, often (as
today) on rocky ground among trees, I've still never, ever hit my head
on anything at all as a result of falling off a bike.

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

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

Just zis Guy said:

JohnB said:

Quoted message said:

Don't forget that some of the most voval people in the anti-compulsion
wossnames often wear helmets themselves.

Quoted message said:

Yes, damn irritating that - they go around advertising that cycling is
dangerous, whilst pronouncing otherwise :-(

Not necessarily.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Carrying an umbrella does not proclaim absolute certainty that it will
rain...

I agree.
But the umbrella advertises to others that the person carrying it thinks
that it might rain.

John B

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:08:28 +0100, [email hidden] (Just zis Guy, you

know?) said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

Well ,well - Guy's back defending all you poor mindless fools who
can't defend yourselves from that bullying Duck !

Well well, the disputatious idiot is so arrogant that he believes he is
enough of a threat that anybody posting against him is doing so in order
to defend others who, he believes, lack the titanic intellect necessary
to debate successfully with him.

Well guess who's back trolling .

Dude , this isn't the bowels of "Clarkson" - there's a chance people
might actually read this .

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:08:27 +0100, [email hidden] (Just zis Guy, you

know?) said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

Quoted message said:

>Its like the whole h*lmet debate - 'We don't think we should have to
>wear one,therefore no one should.'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you will find that it is the pro-helmet lobby, not the
sceptics, who seek to force their decision on others, including by
advocating legislation.

Quoted message said:

And before you start crying about me not answering the point,re-read
my quote -
"We don't think we should have to wear one,therefore no one should"
I can't see any referrence to a ban on helmet use. You must be up to
mischief again , you naughty old tr*ll !

No, you disputatious idiot, I am pointing out that the group which is
characterised by seeking to force its judgment on others is the
pro-helmet lobby, not the sceptics. Most sceptics are quite happy to
live and let live.

"disputatious idiot" again ? That's about the 7th time ,I think you've
used that phrase.
Does that mean "bloke who defends his position without resorting to
abuse in the absence of a valid argument "?
Why do you obsess about me so ?
It's kinda flattering but I've gotta tell ya , I'm straight

Quoted message said:

In other words, your example was the wrong way round: it should have
been "it's like the whole helmet debate - 'we wear one, therefore
everyone should'"

There you go again , putting words into people's mouths to try to
steer the debate to your benefit.

If you and your 'partners' would just accept that you've lost an
argument you wouldn't have to follow me around the 'group trying to
tr*ll , or score cheap points over misinterpreted snippets of my
posts.

You can scream "disputatious idiot" all you want , but a quick review
of all my posts will show that you (and the other tr*lls)have been the
cause of unnecessarily long threads in this 'group.

You've admitted on 3 occasions in your last reply in "Clarkson" that
you intended to wind me up and cause mischief.

They're there for everyone to see.

Do you have a bet to be the o.p. in the post with the most replies ?