published helmet research - not troll



"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> > wrote in message
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
> > >of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
> > >subject at hand.

> >
> > Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
> > conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

>
> My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
> "How to act the ass without really trying".


My impression is we have two children who are trying to morph a
discussion about bicycles helmets (you know, on bicycles traveling
between 10 and 30 mph) into a discussion of supersonic aircraft,
all because they really don't have a valid point to make and are
into mindless personal attacks. What a pair of infants Guy and
Tom make!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
> > >"How to act the ass without really trying".

> >
> > Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)

>
> Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.


Now we have Guy and Tom figuratively gratifying each other. They'd
be a lot less frustrated if they just hooked up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> Now, how about the challenge I issued?


>I've gone over it 30 times already


Indeed, and each time the fundamental flaws in your assertion have
been pointed out to you, most notably the fact that all your evidence
actually says the opposite of what you assert. There are three
possible ways forward from that position:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

You had one go at 2, but the new data only reinforced the proof that
you are wrong. Which of the three will you try next?

>You need
>a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
>shaping to get a net reduction in drag.


Assuming that *unrestrained long hair* is representative, yes. It
isn't, of course. If short hair is representative you obviously need
a very substantial improvement, but why let inconvenient facts spoil a
good house of cards?

The crucial fact is, as has been pointed out more times than I care to
count, you have provided no evidence to suggest that this notional
improvement has been realised. Others have pointed out reasons why a
modern multi-vented helmet might very well be worse than the V-1, and
at least one of the studies you cited had /as a starting premise/ the
stated fact that helmets increase drag. Not even the manufacturers
claim any aerodynamic drag reduction - you stand alone, as ever.

Add to this the fact that the measured reduction in drag with an aero
helmet is achievable only when the rider's head is held in a constant
position relative to the body, and with the body maintained in an aero
crouch (neither of which is exactly representative of the average
cyclist), and I think you can see why we would need more than the
arm-waving of a helmet zealot before we believe that modern helmets
are more aero than the V-1, let alone sufficiently better to
outperform short hair.

>The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.


Supported in the way that Origin of the Species supports creationism,
evidently.

>refusing to put up with your infantile behavior is not an "evasion."


I bow to your superior knowledge: I think we can all agree that
evasion is one area in which your expertise and experience outweighs
that of probably all other participants in these ngs combined.

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 Washington University
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>>
>> >> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
>> >> atheist and an agnostic.

>>
>> >Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.

>>
>> LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?

>
> I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
> times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
> I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
> helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
> full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
> a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
> couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
> a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
> shaping to get a net reduction in drag.


To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an ANSI
certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold as
ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.

Moreover, modern road helmets with their odd shapes and multiple vents have
considerably more drag than the Bell V1 Pro that had more drag than any bare
head.

>> 1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
>> 2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
>> contradicting it, or
>> 3. shut up.

>
> The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.


As Guy stated - "Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening""

Does it hurt your head to be that stupid?
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> Now, how about the challenge I issued?

>
> >I've gone over it 30 times already


.... and we don't need 31 times.

>
> Indeed, and each time the fundamental flaws in your assertion have
> been pointed out to you, most notably the fact that all your evidence
> actually says the opposite of what you assert. There are three
> possible ways forward from that position:


You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have
a point when you in fact don't. I'll snip the rest of your post
as well. Given your continued infantile name calling, I'll assume
you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion of any time.

Enjoy your time out. Your cut-and-paste jobs are the halmark of
a troll.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> > I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
> > times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
> > I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
> > helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
> > full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
> > a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
> > couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
> > a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
> > shaping to get a net reduction in drag.

>
> To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an ANSI
> certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
> Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold as
> ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.


Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal
helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in
the previous posts. The others were. The one that is not ANSI
certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how
much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI
certified one.

> Moreover, modern road helmets with their odd shapes and multiple vents have
> considerably more drag than the Bell V1 Pro that had more drag than any bare
> head.


You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions.

> Does it hurt your head to be that


Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion?
Is it perchance the same personal problem that landed you in the slammer
for an evening? Face it, Kunich, you have a history of being abusive.
It's time for you to grow up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> >I've gone over it 30 times already

>... and we don't need 31 times.


To know you are wrong? No indeed.

>You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have
>a point when you in fact don't.


Which might make sense if it weren't you who is trying to make a
point. All we are doing is challenging you to provide proof. Thus
far the proof you have provided shows the opposite of what you assert,
hence the challenge:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

>I'll snip the rest of your post as well.


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

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 Washington University
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions.


In the same way that you provide no evidence to support your
assertions. All the evidence you posted proves you wrong.

The crucial difference here is that Tom is not making claims (of
benefit or otherwise), while you are. You have made a claim, we have
challenged you to substantiate it, and you have signally failed to do
so. Although you have provided some world-class examples of evasion
along the way.

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

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> >I've gone over it 30 times already

> >... and we don't need 31 times.

>
> To know you are wrong? No indeed.


All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
assertions. I've provided three data points - an aerodynamicly
designed helmet that reduces drag relative to a bare head, an
ANSI-certified aerodynamically designed helmet whose air drag is
between that for a bald head and that for short hair, and a
non-aerodyanmiclly designed helmet (a Bell V1 Pro) that is slightly
worse than long hair. Your assertion seems to be either that it is
impossible to come up with a design whose air drag falls in between
the latter two points, providing a slight air drag reduction, or that
helmet designers decided to develop worse designs from year to year as
they went to more aerodynamic shapes.

I also showed some data where the air drag for a couple of helmet
shapes was measured, showing a net reduction.

>
> >I'll snip the rest of your post as well.

>
> Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening".


When you act like an infant, you'll be put in a time out and ignored.
Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your
other post today as well.

If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your
history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject and cut the baby talk.
I know it must hurt you to be treated like a child, but if you want
to be treated like an adult, start acting like one.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> >> >I've gone over it 30 times already
>> >... and we don't need 31 times.

>> To know you are wrong? No indeed.


>All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
>assertions.


Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
provide some proof to back your assertion. This amounts, in
BillWorld[tm] to a "mindless assertion" on my part. But you are
ignoring the simple and obvious fact that it is /you/ who are making
claims of benefit, /you/ who are making what assertions are being
made, /you/ who provided the proof you are wrong, /you/ who have
failed to provide evidence to back your assertion.

It's a strange place, BillWorld[tm], and no mistake.

>Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your
>other post today as well.


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

>If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your
>history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject


I did. Per the subject, I presented the following clear and
unambiguous challenge:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

So far you have tried insults, evasions and repeating your disproven
assertion.

Executive summary:

Bill |<---------------- unbridgeable chasm ---------------->| Clue

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

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> >> >I've gone over it 30 times already
> >> >... and we don't need 31 times.
> >> To know you are wrong? No indeed.

>
> >All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
> >assertions.

>
> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
> provide some proof to back your assertion.


The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
thing - it agrees with what I was stating. Obviously you've added no
new information to the discussion and think that repeating yourself
with lots of verbage will somehow convince people. And that is all
you are doing.

I.e, you are a mindless troll - and *still* resorting to childish name
calling. Why don't you start acting like an adult - it really isn't
that hard.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>> To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an
>> ANSI
>> certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
>> Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold
>> as
>> ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.

>
> Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal
> helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in
> the previous posts. The others were.


But of course the one you were claiming to show less drag than a bald head
was the non-ANSI helmet. Let's face it Bill, your lies show a remarkable
lack of talent especially when you are the one that supplied the citations.
Could you possibly be so stupid a to believe that no one would actually look
at those citations to ascertain the truth of your statements? Apparently you
are and feel that you need only lie about the parts that disagree with your
assertions. That is - everything.

> The one that is not ANSI
> certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how
> much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI
> certified one.


Yes, what you can do is qiute a bit less than an ANSI helmet and barely less
than a bald head or even short hair IF you are willing to only ride in a
racing crouch, on aero bars and with your head placed solidly forward never
looking either right nor left. In fact, sort of the way you view the world
around you - with tunnel vision and completely outside of reality.

> Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion?


Do you mean like your idea of a civil discussion where you make unsupported
claims and then supply a citation that proves you completely wrong whereby
you post for a month saying exactly the opposite of the information you
yourself provided?

Bill, everyone on the internet now knows that you are seriously mental. I
suggest you find a good shrink and discuss why you cannot admit you are
wrong even when you supply the proof yourself.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
>> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
>> provide some proof to back your assertion.

>
> The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> thing - it agrees with what I was stating.


You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%. That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you
were looking at but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance
on your part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

> Obviously you've added no
> new information to the discussion and think that repeating yourself
> with lots of verbage will somehow convince people. And that is all
> you are doing.


Since it isn't necessary for Guy or anyone else to add any information
contrary to your assertions since you were kind enough to cite not one but
TWO sources that both contradicted your own claims.

Guy has challenged you to supply ANY information that supports your claims
or to admit you were wrong. Frank was kind enough to give you the benefit of
a doubt and suggested that perhaps YOU had some sort of helmet that indeed
had less drag than a full head of long hair. Instead of replying you evaded
his questions with a paranoia that has become your trademark.

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
> >> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
> >> provide some proof to back your assertion.

> >
> > The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> > thing - it agrees with what I was stating.

>
> You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
> on a bicyclist by 5%.


The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice. Then someone asked for
some data, I did a google search, and found a case that gave a
reduction of about 5% for one particular helmet. It was near the top
of the list google produced. I merely gave a URL and a short statement
of what you'll find in it, since you had to scroll down a few screenfuls
to find anything.

And you are daft enough as to complain about that?

> That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you were looking at
> but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance on your
> part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
> against it."


Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

> Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
> lock you up for your own protection.


That from someone who actually was locked up for the protection of
others as you were? Should I post the URL again - after all *you*
brought this behavior up on some of these newsgroups.

I'll ignore your other posts from today. You are acting as badly
as that Guy character, if not worse. Given your history, as far
as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> >All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
>> >assertions.


>> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
>> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
>> provide some proof to back your assertion.


>The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
>thing - it agrees with what I was stating.


Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario. Your assertion that modern helmets
are somehow better than this, combined with your assertion-by-stealth
that long hair is representative of cyclists in general, forms the
claim to which several of us object. One of the studies you cite
starts form the base premise that helmets increase drag, but you seem
to want us to believe otherwise; it is not surprising that your word
as a zealot is less persuasive than all that evidence which
contradicts you.

But you do have three possible ways forward from here:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

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 Washington University
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!


Misinterpreted by you as applying to a helmet, whereas it actually
applies to a head fairing with no protective capability. I seem to
recall that it took some time to get that point over to you, if indeed
we did since you still persist in producing that figure out of a hat
occasionally.

>I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
>small for most cyclists to notice in practice.


Indeed you did. And your own figures show the exact opposite opposite
- an increase which is significant for the short-haired cyclist and
less so for the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
hair. You were therefore challenged to back your assertion with data.
In trying to do so you produced several citations to the original Kyle
study which proved you wrong, and one new study whose starting premise
is that helmets increase drag - presumably based on Kyle.

That leaves you with three possible options:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

So far you have preferred your usual mix of evasion, denial,
ad-hominem and reiteration of the incorrect assertion. But we live in
hope.

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 Washington University
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
> seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
> don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
> worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
> worth rather than talk about the real issues.)


In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With
China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00,
Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China.
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans
workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with
China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush
administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was
manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade
Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote
#237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq.
KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given
diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to
disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported
him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat
Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted "To Threaten" Use Of Force In Iraq. "I voted to
threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions
of the United Nations." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of
Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think you
belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this
war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard
Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the
war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the
anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe
the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC's
"Hardball," 1/6/04)

Yeah, Mr. Consistancy your name is Kerry.

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously
by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313:
Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. "Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with
improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do
with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on
September 11th." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester,
NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not
of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That
starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our
people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a District Attorney and
I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on
American's basic rights." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State
University, 12/1/03)

More of that well known Kerry Konsistancy.

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same
Constituent. "Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most
expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much
like he did this time around. Consider this 'Notebook' item from TNR's March
25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline 'Same Senator, Same Constituent':
'Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use
of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January
11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic
sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the
president the immediate authority to go to war.' --letter from Senator John
Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22
[1991] 'Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for
the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported
President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has
established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.' --Senator
Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]" (Noam Scheiber, "Noam Scheiber's
Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

More of that well known Kerry Konsistancy.

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter "Urging" MA Legislature To Reject
Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. "We rarely comment on issues
that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are
occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all
residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express
our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that
would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of
same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for
Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have
such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. . We are
therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and
avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be
treated in such a manner." (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The
Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won't Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. "Asked if
he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian
marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. 'I'll have to see what
language there is,' he said." (Susan Milligan, "Kerry Says GOP May Target
Him On 'Wedge Issue,'" The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Is this the REAL JOHN KERRY or the Xerox copy?

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began.
"Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . said he will cease his complaints
once the shooting starts. 'It's what you owe the troops,' said a statement
from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. 'I remember being one of
those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't
speak a word without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the
fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert.'" (Glen
Johnson, "Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric," The Boston Globe,
3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His
Pledge. "'What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and
Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,' Kerry said in a
speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to
cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a
barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad." (Glen
Johnson, "Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own 'Regime Change,'" The Boston Globe,
4/3/03)

And Speaking of Xreox Copies:

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions

Flip-Flopped On NAFTA

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

Flip-Flopped On PACs

Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC

Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense

Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition

Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror

Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation

And just in this campaign he has stated that we should seek international
support for controlling terrorist nations then stated that we should have
dealt unilaterally with North Korea instead of historic involvement that was
a giant feather in the cap of George Bush.

The Democrats complained loudly that we STILL had US military in South Korea
only to turn around an scream that reducing troops there was the wrong thing
to do.

The Kerry campaign claimed that Bush only went into Iraq for cheap oil and
they are now complaining that Bush went into Iraq to make oil more
expensive.

You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:


Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.
>
> >> >All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
> >> >assertions.

>
> >> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
> >> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
> >> provide some proof to back your assertion.

>
> >The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> >thing - it agrees with what I was stating.

>
> Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
> that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
> worst-case unhelmeted scenario.


It doesn't say that. It shows an airodyanamic advantage of 5.2 percent
for an ANSI approved Bell Stratos. See

<http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm>.

The Bell V1 Pro is not an aerodynamic design (it is completely
symmetric.) It is only *slightly* worse than riding with long hair.

It may surprise you, but most of us don't choose our hair style to
cut air drag when riding a bicycle.


> Your assertion that modern helmest are somehow better than this,
> combined with your assertion-by-stealth that long hair is
> representative of cyclists in general, forms the claim to which
> several of us object.


We have two data points - a nonaerodyamic design that is just slightly
worse than a bare head and an aerodyamically designed one that is
significantly better. You can therefore trade off cooling and other
desirable features for drag and still come out ahead.


> One of the studies you cite starts form the base premise that
> helmets increase drag, but you seem to want us to believe otherwise;
> it is not surprising that your word as a zealot is less persuasive
> than all that evidence which contradicts you.


Sigh. The other URL I provided showed helmets decreasing drag. and the
only zealost are you and that Kunich character - Kunich's been on an
anti-helmet rant for over 10 years.

> 3. shut up.


How mature of you (and you repeat it incessantly, like the little boy
your are.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
507
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
436
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
346
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
304
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J