Paramount

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> that does it pretty regularly.

I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
minimize its extra wind resistance.

Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
riding time on the discussion.

What kind of friend is that?

Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
much?

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

If it's true, it's partly because "many" is non-quantitative and
vague. It's meaningless in this context. In a community this size,
"many" hold every conceivable opinion.

But it's largely false, partly because you are imagining many

A good copyeditor, even a mediocre one, could point out to you the little
glitch in "some" of you "many" ramblings. Did you write this ironically,
maybe? Then good for you.

-snip helmet-

Bill Sornson said:

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank, Flailor, JFT,
can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against lids, they badger and
belittle those who choose to wear them.
I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything like you
describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down Noble Canyon (a
VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's nuts, but I certainly
would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal, you see).
Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster leans well
left politically, although not every left winger is anti-lid by any means.
(I know several die-hard liberals who wouldn't be caught dead riding without
their helmets.)
It's a tad mysterious.

Maybe there's just no correlation; causal, coincidental or otherwise.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

But here' sa serious question for you. If it's hard to notice that
one is wearing a helmet, why do so many people who are not being
pushed to wear a helmet choose not to wear a helmet.

For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke, drink too
much, let themselves get fat, fail to save for their retirement etc.

email hidden said:

Are you familiar with something called a concussion. It is a serious
blow to the head. It can cause anywhere from unconsciousness to more
severe problems. I never said that the impacts to my helmet prevented
my skull from cracking or exploding. I simply argued that it prevented
more serious damage. the skull, as you probably know, has no organic
function. It simply protects the brain. a helmet is not necessarily
designed to prevent the skull from exploding, as you, articulate
types, put it. It adds another lawyer of protection to the brain. A
blow to the head, without cracking your skull, can still kill you. The
fact that there are more cracked helmets than cracked skulls doesn't
mean that the helmets prevented skulls from cracking. It simply means
that they prevented blows to the head which could have resulted in
mild concussions or more severe and irreparable damage. the fact that
you argue that there are so many cracked helmets implies that people
fall on their head while riding. I think that those who were wearing a
helmet and it cracked were pretty lucky to have been wearing one.

Again, we hear all sorts of stories like yours. But in aggregate the
numbers arent' there. So either you were some sort of exception, or
your conclusion is probably (though not definitively) wrong.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

DI said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
.

Quoted message said:

And for an alternative test: Lean your bare head toward the side of a
speeding railroad train, closer and closer, until your scalp is 1/2
inch away. Now repeat, putting your head in exactly the same
position, but this time with an inch-thick helmet strapped to it.

The point is, the cushioning effect of a helmet does not come without
a price. The head becomes a larger target, and if you could obtain
data for the entire population of cyclists, it's obvious it would show
more helmet impacts than bare head impacts.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

I thought it was brilliant comeback.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster leans well
left politically, although not every left winger is anti-lid by any means.
(I know several die-hard liberals who wouldn't be caught dead riding without
their helmets.)

Nice ramble. You make no real point because you mention the diversity
of view the other people hold, but you use "die-hard liberal", "left
winger" and "leans left" like a stereotypical ditto-head.

And "almost every" but "not every" and "several" all work together
logically to show you're not really saying much.

Nice.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:42:25 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

But here' sa serious question for you. If it's hard to notice that
one is wearing a helmet, why do so many people who are not being
pushed to wear a helmet choose not to wear a helmet.

For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke, drink too
much, let themselves get fat,

They're addicted?

Quoted message said:

fail to save for their retirement etc.

They don't plan for the inevitable and plan to get lucky or die early?

Bizarre responses. Do you use the same description for every are
aspect of life for which you don't take the most conservatively
prudent protections.

Do you really think that not wearing a helmet means your head will be
injured at some point with the same degree of certainty that not
saving for retirement means you won't have money?

Do you really think the tens of millions of people in, say, the
Netherlands are so ignorant and reckless?

Smarmy and deluded you are.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> > gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> > that does it pretty regularly.
>
> I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
> compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
> a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
> you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
> minimize its extra wind resistance.

Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
riding time on the discussion.

What kind of friend is that?

Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
much?

Then be their friend.
Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try to give you [censored].
Friends do not let friends get away with being a jerk.

--
Michael Press

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(about...?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.

:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with return
insults.

The problem, Bill, is that you see most attempts at logic and science
as being pompous. "How dare that guy try to think logically?"

Quoted message said:

Probably even lost my temper a few times, before realizing with
what I was dealing. Typical brainiac (self-described) quite sure his is the
/only/ correct opinion.

LOL. You forget that I started out pro-helmet. Not vehemently so,
but enough that I certainly made pro-helmet statements, even in
print.

It was only after encountering these discussions on Usenet, then
examining the evidence pro and con, that I became convinced that
helmets are both a scam and a superstition.

I examined the evidence thoroughly, to the extent that I spent much
time in the library, where I requested and studied many refereed
papers. I reformed my opinion because of the evidence, I am quite
sure I'm now correct. I'm quite sure I was wrong before.

Oddly, this offends you - why? Because you are quite sure YOURS is
the only correct opinion? Despite the fact that you won't use your
library to even check the facts? What does it say about a person when
he thinks study and learning is contemptible?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."
In fact, at least one famous helmet-promotion website has a large
inventory of such insults that they encourage their disciples to use!

But you attribute those types of arguments to those who do not use them.

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Quoted message said:

People who have personal experience and use their own reasoning to arrive at
a conclusion that differs from yours do not deserve the type of derision you
so often deal out.

I'm sorry, but I think you're reading derision where there is none.
Yes, when someone is insulting and anti-intelligence, I'm likely to
get riled. But I've had long, polite and productive discussions here
and in person with people who disagreed with me on this issue. I
don't wish to name names, but I know one person who went from being
rabidly pro-helmet on Usenet (based on his personal crash experience,
"It saved my life"😉 to now leading the fight against mandatory helmet
laws in his country.

One difference between him and you, BTW, is we were able to convince
him to actually read and evaluate the scientific evidence.

Quoted message said:

You read stats and population studies and decide to do one thing. Others
have or see things happen first-hand and apply common sense (a barrier
between one's skull and a very hard surface is a good thing) and decide
diffferently. BFD. Get over it.

:-) You don't realize how that paragraph shows your weakness in
critical thinking! You seem to think all arguments are equal - that a
single personal observation trumps the collection of data from entire
nations!

Quoted message said:

Ah, but do you know any right wingers who are vehemently ANTI helmet? I
don't recall even one on here, and certainly don't know any.

I don't know anyone who is vehemently anti-helmet. That is, I don't
know anyone who is trying to outlaw the use of helmets. By contrast,
there are many people working very hard to outlaw riding without
helmets, and to prosecute those who choose to.

Rather, the people you argue against on this issue are, I'd say, anti-
propaganda and pro-bicycling. We fight the outright lies that claim
that helmet use has produced tremendous gains in safety. We fight the
disproven wild claim that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. We
fight the propaganda that ordinary cycling is so risky that helmets
are necessary.

Still, I absolutely do know of people who are right-wing politically,
but strongly disagree with your position. FWIW, they seem to put a
higher value on the "personal freedom" aspect than those who are left-
wing. But they too have studied the evidence, decided that the
science is against helmet promotion, decided that helmet propaganda is
anti-cycling, and decided to fight it.

(There are those nasty words against - "study" and "science." Sorry,
but I plan to keep using them.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll agree on this point: It does seem that those leaning politically
left are more prone to be pro-helmet, or pro-MHL. That's been the
situation in my state, anyway.

Then why are the only ones so rabidly /anti/ helmet all seemingly left, too?

A person who is at the extreme, extreme right will naturally see
everyone else as "seemingly left."

- Frank Krygowski

DI said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
.

Quoted message said:

And for an alternative test: Lean your bare head toward the side of
a speeding railroad train, closer and closer, until your scalp is 1/2
inch away. Now repeat, putting your head in exactly the same
position, but this time with an inch-thick helmet strapped to it.

The point is, the cushioning effect of a helmet does not come without
a price. The head becomes a larger target, and if you could obtain
data for the entire population of cyclists, it's obvious it would
show more helmet impacts than bare head impacts.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

Well, Frank HAS been on vacation! LOL

Bill Sornson said:

DI said:

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

Well, Frank HAS been on vacation! LOL

And I repeat:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."

Quoted message said:

But you attribute those types of arguments to those who do not use them.

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?

But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

On Jul 7, 3:36 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:08:28 -0700, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

What the hell are you talking about? What stronger info are you
talking about? Once I cracked a helmet in half. had it not been
there my head would have been the next contact surface. what
stronger information is there that says that if my helmet wasn't
there my head would have survived the impact? I passed out and
woke up in the hospital 4 hours later.

What information is there that the helmet helped? I just don't
understand how the fact that something far weaker than your skull
was damaged demonstrates anything. We could look at leather
helmets or even a bag of jello and the fact that those things would
be destroyed would suggest they help, by your logic.

Now, it's possible it did help. But we hear so many stories like
yours that the only way the majority of them could be true would be
if we were seeing unhelmeted people dying in scores. And we don't.

Are you familiar with something called a concussion. It is a serious
blow to the head. It can cause anywhere from unconsciousness to more
severe problems. I never said that the impacts to my helmet prevented
my skull from cracking or exploding. I simply argued that it
prevented more serious damage.

It may have. It may not have. You believe that it did, but belief does
not make things true.

Quoted message said:

the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
protects the brain.

WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This is
one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

Quoted message said:

a helmet is not necessarily designed to prevent the skull from
exploding, as you, articulate types, put it. It adds another lawyer
of protection to the brain. A blow to the head, without cracking your
skull, can still kill you. The fact that there are more cracked
helmets than cracked skulls doesn't mean that the helmets prevented
skulls from cracking. It simply means that they prevented blows to
the head which could have resulted in mild concussions or more severe
and irreparable damage. the fact that you argue that there are so
many cracked helmets implies that people fall on their head while
riding. I think that those who were wearing a helmet and it cracked
were pretty lucky to have been wearing one.

That's a lot of couldas.

Thank you for responding to my question. Bruce....I have two questions
for you.
1st...you mentioned the durability of your super light bike. Do you mean
that carbon frames are not as durable as steel or aluminum?

2nd....you mention a frame fromTawain. I was in my local bike shops
today and they sold Trek, Specialized, and Giant. I noticed on all three
brands "Made in Tawain". I was very surprised to see that among such
reputable companies. Is that common for most bikes sold in the USA to me
made there?

I am looking to get a flat bar bike and found one on the internet I like
alot...the Giant CRX 1. Unfortunately, it is not sold in my local bike
shops.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> > > gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> > > that does it pretty regularly.
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
> > compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
> > a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
> > you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
> > minimize its extra wind resistance.
>
> Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
> that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
> pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
> wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
> don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
> friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
> riding time on the discussion.

What kind of friend is that?

Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
much?

Then be their friend.
Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try to give you [censored].
Friends do not let friends get away with being a jerk.

They aren't being jerks about it, Michael.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(about...?)

Quoted message said:

> I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
> Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
> lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.
:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with
return insults.

The problem, Bill, is that you see most attempts at logic and science
as being pompous. "How dare that guy try to think logically?"

Bull. I distinctly recall /many/ encounters with you where you say "well
you refuse to learn" or "those who can't learn from their betters" or some
such [censored]. It's condescending, period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Probably even lost my temper a few times, before realizing with
what I was dealing. Typical brainiac (self-described) quite sure
his is the /only/ correct opinion.

LOL. You forget that I started out pro-helmet. Not vehemently so,
but enough that I certainly made pro-helmet statements, even in
print.

So what? That has absolutely no bearing on your current position. (The
world is full of "born-again" believers of all stripes, Frank.)

BTW, except for pro-MHL people, I don't think anyone that I've seen is
"vehemently" pro-helmet; the emotionalism all comes from the anti- crowd.
Liddites say "do what you want but leave me alone"; antis claim intellectual
superiority and seem to NEED to put down pros.

Quoted message said:

y after encountering these discussions on Usenet, then
examining the evidence pro and con, that I became convinced that
helmets are both a scam and a superstition.

Ah, so because you've concluded this is must be so! Gotcha.

Quoted message said:

I examined the evidence thoroughly, to the extent that I spent much
time in the library, where I requested and studied many refereed
papers. I reformed my opinion because of the evidence, I am quite
sure I'm now correct. I'm quite sure I was wrong before.

You're well read on the subject; doesn't mean you're /right/. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Oddly, this offends you - why? Because you are quite sure YOURS is
the only correct opinion? Despite the fact that you won't use your
library to even check the facts? What does it say about a person when
he thinks study and learning is contemptible?

Sigh. We've been over this many times. I have personal experience where a
helmet has /worked/ to prevent or at least lessen injuries due to a bike
crash (all off-road in my case). YES I COULD BE MISTAKEN but it's my firmly
held belief based on DIRECT OBSERVATION and yes, COMMON SENSE. (Barrier
between two hard objects will lessen the impact between said two objects.)

Your opinion doesn't offend me in the least. What offends me is your
attitude toward those who don't share it. You're fee to think and do what
you please; please allow me and others that same freedom. (Again, unless
someone is advocating MHLs, why do you care?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."
In fact, at least one famous helmet-promotion website has a large
inventory of such insults that they encourage their disciples to
use!

But you attribute those types of arguments to those who do not use
them.

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Ozark is hardly my cohort (plonked him long ago because he's crude and
abusive). I may have used a "not worth protecting" argument very early in
my participation in these threads, but if so it was quickly abandoned in
favor of "personal experience and common sense" versus incomplete and
misleading statistics and biased whole population studies-type arguments.

I was the first to call you a pompous gasbag, I believe, but that's hardly
an 8th-grade insult. It's Usenet 101 when confronted with an eggheaded,
conceited "professor" of pabulum. Sorry!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who have personal experience and use their own reasoning to
arrive at a conclusion that differs from yours do not deserve the
type of derision you so often deal out.

I'm sorry, but I think you're reading derision where there is none.
Yes, when someone is insulting and anti-intelligence, I'm likely to
get riled. But I've had long, polite and productive discussions here
and in person with people who disagreed with me on this issue. I
don't wish to name names, but I know one person who went from being
rabidly pro-helmet on Usenet (based on his personal crash experience,
"It saved my life"😉 to now leading the fight against mandatory helmet
laws in his country.

One difference between him and you, BTW, is we were able to convince
him to actually read and evaluate the scientific evidence.

Covered and covered and covered again. If I'm in a car and FEEL the seat
belt restrain me from going into or through the windshield, no stats or
studies saying that seat belts are ineffective are going to convince me
otherwise. I've FELT (and heard) a helmet take the blow on sharp hard
pointy rocks instead of my skull. I SAW the dents in it. No stats or
studies are going to convince me otherwise. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You read stats and population studies and decide to do one thing.
Others have or see things happen first-hand and apply common sense
(a barrier between one's skull and a very hard surface is a good
thing) and decide diffferently. BFD. Get over it.

:-) You don't realize how that paragraph shows your weakness in
critical thinking!

No condescension there, perfessor.

Quoted message said:

You seem to think all arguments are equal - that a
single personal observation trumps the collection of data from entire
nations!

Single? I and countless others have seen and heard many such incidents.
Entire nations? I care about the type of bike riding that *I* do, and what
is reasonably possible to happen while I'm out there. If I fall and hit my
head on something hard, I want to have a barrier present to cushion the
blow. Sue me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah, but do you know any right wingers who are vehemently ANTI
helmet? I don't recall even one on here, and certainly don't know
any.

I don't know anyone who is vehemently anti-helmet. That is, I don't
know anyone who is trying to outlaw the use of helmets.

Not at all the same thing. Why else would you spend hundreds of hours in
the library if you're not at least somewhat emotionally invested in the
issue. You're anti-helmet, Frank. Period. (Does not follow that you'd
want to outlaw them; cheap strawman.)

Quoted message said:

By contrast,
there are many people working very hard to outlaw riding without
helmets, and to prosecute those who choose to.

Different argument entirely and you know it. No one that I recall on here
has been in favor of MHLs, yet you take them on endlessly nonetheless.

that claim

Quoted message said:

that helmet use has produced tremendous gains in safety. We fight the
disproven wild claim that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. We
fight the propaganda that ordinary cycling is so risky that helmets
are necessary.

Still, I absolutely do know of people who are right-wing politically,
but strongly disagree with your position. FWIW, they seem to put a
higher value on the "personal freedom" aspect than those who are left-
wing. But they too have studied the evidence, decided that the
science is against helmet promotion, decided that helmet propaganda is
anti-cycling, and decided to fight it.

(There are those nasty words against - "study" and "science." Sorry,
but I plan to keep using them.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll agree on this point: It does seem that those leaning
politically left are more prone to be pro-helmet, or pro-MHL.
That's been the situation in my state, anyway.

Then why are the only ones so rabidly /anti/ helmet all seemingly
left, too?

A person who is at the extreme, extreme right will naturally see
everyone else as "seemingly left."

LOL List all the participants in these flame wars. The pro-lid people come
from both ends; the anti-lid people are without exception lefties. Name
just one conservative or "non liberal" who's anti-helmet! Just one???

God, this is tiresome, Frank. I'm done wasting my typing fingers on you.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT, MAN! It's /so/ important...

BS

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 9:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?

But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.

- Frank Krygowski

You don't think it would be stupid to stand by a train track and ram your
head into the train just to prove you could get it an inch closer without a
helmet?

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
>> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>
>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>
>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>
> A) It's common sense;

Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me
with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need science.

No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will be
harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER or
BUFFER, you see.)

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.

Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table with no pad
in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even stop wearing a lid!
(Maybe.)

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

DI said:

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

Well, Frank HAS been on vacation! LOL

And I repeat:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."

Quoted message said:

But you attribute those types of arguments to those who do not use
them.

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?

But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.

It was such a cheap shot that you had to DELETE your stupid comment that
prompted DI's remark?

Classic stuff, Frank. (PS: Lighten up, Gertrude. It was funny. Almost as
funny as trying to prove helmets are dangerous by putting your head inches
from a speeding train! LOL )

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Sornson said:

...
So fine, ride without a lid. Who's stoppin' ya?

In quite a few jurisdictions, the police would, due to the lies of the
pro-helmet propagandists on the effectiveness of foam hats on preventing
serious injury and death.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com