J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:37:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:
>It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
>were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
>said.
So you say. As it happens, our law did not pass, and the arguments
I describe were used. You assert that this approach does not work,
but it appears to us that it does. We have no evidence that the
approach you advocate as the only appropriate one has ever been
used, let alone worked. So we'll be sticking with our way.
>The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
>wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
>these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
>helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
>Usenet in the helmet wars.
Your username is "SMS". There is no link to say who you are. My
signature contains details of who I am, Frank posts under his own
name. So much for the anonymity argument.
Frank has testified in person in front of his legislature. I have
not, but I was in correspondence with the Minister of State, and
other members of my group *were* meeting with ministers and other
members of the legislature (and do so fairly regularly).
So your premise is false and you lose your wager.
>It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
>statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
>status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
Wrong again, bozo.
What on earth would be the reason *not* to point out that the
pro-helmet side are using a weak kind of evidence which does not
match what happens in the real world? Why would you not do that?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
said in <[email protected]>:
>It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
>were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
>said.
So you say. As it happens, our law did not pass, and the arguments
I describe were used. You assert that this approach does not work,
but it appears to us that it does. We have no evidence that the
approach you advocate as the only appropriate one has ever been
used, let alone worked. So we'll be sticking with our way.
>The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
>wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
>these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
>helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
>Usenet in the helmet wars.
Your username is "SMS". There is no link to say who you are. My
signature contains details of who I am, Frank posts under his own
name. So much for the anonymity argument.
Frank has testified in person in front of his legislature. I have
not, but I was in correspondence with the Minister of State, and
other members of my group *were* meeting with ministers and other
members of the legislature (and do so fairly regularly).
So your premise is false and you lose your wager.
>It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
>statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
>status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
Wrong again, bozo.
What on earth would be the reason *not* to point out that the
pro-helmet side are using a weak kind of evidence which does not
match what happens in the real world? Why would you not do that?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound