published helmet research - not troll

[Bill Z.]

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

> "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)

In case you don't know, both are consistent positions. You can be in favor
of normal trade relations with China - treating China the same as other
countries - and still want to make sure that our government looks after
the interests of American workers, not the Bush ruling class.
>
> Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.

Yep, it's consistent. I'll ignore the rest of your propaganda - it is
an obvious cut and paste job from the usual right-wing lunatic fringe.
>
> You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?

Looks like Kunich is a real piece of work, doesn't it. He can't even
spell his favorite word.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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.

Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having been proven wrong by your own data, you have the following
three possible choices:

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 Z.]

"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.
>
> Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
> evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
> listening"

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.
>
> [ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
> times by multiple posters ]
>
> So, having

[ snip repetition of Guy's continued cut and paste from his previous
posts ].

> 3. shut up.

Once again, Guy is whining like a little boy. What an infant. To
Guy a hint, you will not get anywhere by acting like a little boy.
I think I made the point clearly enough, regardless of your attempts
to misrepresent the data (and that is what you are doing.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

>Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
>over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
>some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
>will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, every piece of data you produced proved you wrong. At this
point there are three options open to you:

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.

Instead you choose ad-hominem, pretending that I am the one with
something to prove (when you are the one making claims of benefit) and
of course the good old Zaumen standby of evasion.

I expected nothing else.

This subthread now lives in the bitbucket, since it is absolutely
clear to all concerned that the evidence is against you but you would
rather try to bore us to death than either admit it or find new data
which does not contradict you.

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.]

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

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
> >will change that.
>
> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.

And I *did* back it up with data. You simply pretended that a limiting
case - a 1980s non-aerodynamic design was the best you could do, even
though we had several data points that did far better, and the non-
aerodynamic design was only slightly worse than riding with "long
hair" instead of going for a sci-fi cyborg look.


And you are *still* posting you childish baby talk. Ask your mommy,
Guy. She has obviously missed something while bringing you up and
you should go back to her for a refresher course.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

>> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
>> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
>> assertion,

>And I *did* back it up with data.

Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly 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.

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, but my money is
on 4. Evasion, 5. Repeating the same discredited assertion in the hope
that someone who hasn't read the data will believe it, or 6.
ad-hominem attack.

Thanks for all the data proving you wrong, that saved me a lot of
time. This subthread is now yours alone to enjoy in your inimitable
style (or rather unimitated, nobody else wanting to make quite such an
exhibition of themselves); no doubt you will claim that as a victory
because once you've driven off everybody who has any knowledge or
insight, in your usual way, you can claim that 100% of the remaining
participants agree with you. The fact that you /are/ 100% of the
remaining participants will no doubt not spoil your pleasure.

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.]

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

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> >> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> >> assertion,
>
> >And I *did* back it up with data.
>
> Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
> circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

That is simply a lie on your part, and you are *still* being a child
with you infantile name calling (and pointing that out is *not*
an ad hominem attack - it is a simply a factual description of
your conduct.) The data clearly showed a non-aerodyamic helmet
that was slightly worse that riding with long hair, an ANSI certified
aerodynamic helmet that was better than riding with short hair, but
a bit worse than being bald headed, and a non-ANSI certified helmet
that reduced air drag over riding with a completely bald head. Quite
obviously, there are many design points in the middle - ANSI certified,
and that give you an air drag reduction for normal cyclists - ones
who don't pick their hair styles to save a few seconds on a bike
ride.


<cut and paste job snipped>
>
> I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, <snip>

You've said you are "outta here" (or words to that effect) before,
and it has *never* been true.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Kunich]

"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:
>>
>> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
>> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
>> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
>> >will change that.
>>
>> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
>> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
>> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.
>
> And I *did* back it up with data.

When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.

 

[Bill Z.]

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

> "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:
> >>
> >> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
> >> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
> >> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
> >> >will change that.
> >>
> >> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> >> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> >> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.
> >
> > And I *did* back it up with data.
>
> When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
> considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
> understand that.

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag. If
you have one limiting case, an older non-aerodynamic design with only
slightly worse drag than a bare head (for a cyclist with a full head
of hair) and other designs that do better than a cyclist with short
hair, then it is pretty obvious that there are lots of points in
between, and that you don't have to do very much better from the
symmetric helmet designs from the 1980s to see a net benefit.

Is that *really* so hard for you to understand or are you just lying
as usual? After all, your track record in the honesty department
should be an embarassment, even for you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

 

[Bill Z.]

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

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.
>
> Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
> coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
> they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.
>
> And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
your posts containing your usual lies.

Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
help. I'd suggest you get it.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.
>>
>> Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
>> coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and
>> that
>> they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.
>>
>> And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.
>
> Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
> to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
> vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
> statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
> your posts containing your usual lies.
>
> Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
> your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
> help. I'd suggest you get it.

It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.

 

[Bill Z.]

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

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> > Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
> > to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
> > vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
> > statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
> > your posts containing your usual lies.
> >
> > Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
> > your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
> > help. I'd suggest you get it.
>
> It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
> from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
> think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.

Is that what you told your former(?) girlfriend when you "back-handed"
her and landed in the slammer? I'm really not impressed with you,
Tommy, nor anyone else with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old
boy. My guess is you've never been in even a remotely dicy situation.
If you had, you wouldn't need to resort to childish macho posturing.
It is really pathetic.

Oh, and if you don't like being called a liar, then you should refrain
from lying. Telling an obvious lie, and you obviously couldn't back
up your lie about what I had said on this topic by posting a URL, and
then pouting when called on it just makes you look like a child.

Oh, and if you do drop by, don't be surprised if you end up in the
slammer for a second time, and your post would be used as evidence
against you. Not very smart of you, one would think.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Bill Z. wrote:

>
> I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

True. You claimed _your_ helmet reduces air drag.

And, when asked, you refused to even tell what model _your_ helmet is.

And when it was pointed out that current helmets do not reduce air drag,
you posted data about an ancient, impractical helmet which is no longer
sold - data which, despite your raving, indicated that you were wrong
about ordinary helmets. Thus, you were almost certainly wrong about
_your_ helmet, whatever it is.

To the best of my knowledge, _no_ person reading this thread has agreed
with you. Everyone seems to think you're wrong.

Sometimes, Bill, when _everyone_ thinks you're wrong, it's because
you're actually wrong!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh, and if you do drop by, don't be surprised if you end up in the
> slammer for a second time, and your post would be used as evidence
> against you. Not very smart of you, one would think.

Give me your address and we'll see about it Bill.

 

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Kunich" wrote ...
>
> Give me your address and we'll see about it Bill.

I go away for what -- six weeks, and this thread, which was already
encyclopaedic, is still alive? Should you be mucking around with bikes or
something Tommo?

JF

 

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.
>
> True. You claimed _your_ helmet reduces air drag.
>
> And, when asked, you refused to even tell what model _your_ helmet is.

Actually, I claimed that I had a typical "teardrop shaped" helmet
that would reduce air drag by a very slight amount and that it is
typical of many helmets.


> Sometimes, Bill, when _everyone_ thinks you're wrong, it's because
> you're actually wrong!

You and two of your minion-trolls are not everyone.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

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

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Oh, and if you do drop by, don't be surprised if you end up in the
> > slammer for a second time, and your post would be used as evidence
> > against you. Not very smart of you, one would think.
>
> Give me your address and we'll see about it Bill.

Is that a threat, Tommy? Nope, you'll not get an invitation, so
if you do show up, I can get you charged for stalking as well. A
little jail time for you would be a big plus for these newsgroups
as you wouldn't be able to post anything.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.
>>
>>True. You claimed _your_ helmet reduces air drag.
>>
>>And, when asked, you refused to even tell what model _your_ helmet is.
>
>
> Actually, I claimed that I had a typical "teardrop shaped" helmet
> that would reduce air drag by a very slight amount and that it is
> typical of many helmets.

Give us the make and model, Bill, or have the sense to slink away in
embarrassment.




--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.
> >>
> >>True. You claimed _your_ helmet reduces air drag.
> >>
> >>And, when asked, you refused to even tell what model _your_ helmet is.
> > Actually, I claimed that I had a typical "teardrop shaped" helmet
> > that would reduce air drag by a very slight amount and that it is
> > typical of many helmets.
>
> Give us the make and model, Bill, or have the sense to slink away in
> embarrassment.

It's simply none of your business. I pointed out that it is a typical
"teardrop-shaped helmet" with a moderate, but not extreme, number of
vents and nothing particularly extreme in its design. You know, kind
of middle-of-the road, dull, and boring, but better than a symmetric
design like a Bell V1 Pro. That's all you need to know. I might have
mentioned it as an example, but it is pretty much a typical design.

Your "slink away" rhetoric just won't fly. It is typical of you,
though, which is why I've always viewed you as a sleazy character - a
wannabe politician type. You fit in quite well, though, as a slicker
version of your cohorts, which include a baby-talking troll and a
girlfriend basher. Nice company you keep, Frank.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB