"Hadron Quark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic".
Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.
And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do more good?
"Hadron Quark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic".
Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.
And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do more good?
Think of the Children!
Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting?
"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
jtaylor said:
"Hadron Quark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
>> > So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent > answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping > produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of > head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for > child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear protective > headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or > "pathetic".
Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.
And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do more good?
Think of the Children!
Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting?
Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up.
I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using them in future.
"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
jtaylor said:
"Hadron Quark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >>> >> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent >> answer, rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping >> produce many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of >> head injuries than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for >> child cyclists but not child runners and jumpers to wear >> protective headgear? Just answer, rather than dismiss as >> "childish" or "pathetic". > > Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids > running and jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by > unforseen impetus. >
And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do more good?
Think of the Children!
Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting?
Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up.
I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using them in future.
I think you are a hypocrite for jumping into an exchange in which you previously had not participated just to throw out a gratuitous insult, when just today you've repeatedly chastised others for {wait for it} posting insults in response to insults.
"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > And as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your > service to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts > where they would do more good? > > Think of the Children!
Aren't you the one who attacked Ozark for being sarcastic and insulting?
Sarcasm, no; insults yes - do try to keep up.
I take it then, given the above reply, that you agree that insults are no replacement for data, and that you will refrain from using them in future.
I think you are a hypocrite for jumping into an exchange in which you previously had not participated just to throw out a gratuitous insult,
when
Quoted message said:
just today you've repeatedly chastised others for {wait for it} posting insults in response to insults.
