Re: Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

..
>
> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't REQUIRED to
> wear helmets,

Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.

The number of places where MHLs exist is increasing; due to fear-mongering
by politicans, helped by people in the cycling community who can (or will)
not understand the stats, who have pecuniary gains from selling ridiculously
expensive foam hats, and who, when challenged on the facts, resort to
"shouting" (on usenet = all-caps) and name-calling.

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
> .
>>
>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>
> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.

Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.

> The number of places where MHLs exist is increasing; due to
> fear-mongering by politicans, helped by people in the cycling
> community who can (or will) not understand the stats, who have
> pecuniary gains from selling ridiculously expensive foam hats, and
> who, when challenged on the facts, resort to "shouting" (on usenet =
> all-caps) and name-calling.

This from a guy (?) who NAME-CALLED ("Do you always /lie/ to your
customers?") one of the most respected posters on here and has yet to
apologize for it. (You DID mis-read his comment, you know.) It was rude
and inappropriate and unprovoked.

You're a hypocrite.

BTW, do you ever post to anything but helmet threads? I don't recall you
ever discussing bikes, or rides, or components, or... (Wait, don't tell me.
Something /political/, right?)

Bill S.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This from a guy (?) who NAME-CALLED ("Do you always /lie/ to your
> customers?") one of the most respected posters on here and has yet to
> apologize for it. (You DID mis-read his comment, you know.) It was rude
> and inappropriate and unprovoked.
>

You're wrong, twice.

To say a statement is such-and-so is not name-calling.

To say a person is a "pompous gasbas" or an "asshole" is.

And it's obvious to people who base their decisions on facts (unlike
youself, per your own statement) that helemts offer no protection, and are a
net negative to public health. For someone who

a) should know better
b) makes a profit by selling the things

to advise his potential customers of the opposite is exactly what I called
it.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
> LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.

What program to provide free lids?

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
> LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.

I think you need to re-read. Ozark mentioned programs for qualified
organizations to get _discounts_ on helmets. The helmets were not
free. (In fact, at $10, my bet is the helmet companies still made a
significant profit. Not that there's sin in making a profit. It's
just that this is another marketing move.)

The "free" part was the proposition that my bike club should incur the
expense to give these helmets away for free. You and Ozark seemed
miffed that I wouldn't jump at such a chance.

Apparently, you can't understand that I am not interested in promoting
helmets.

Granted, there was a time I did promote them. At that time, I hadn't
studied the issue. Like most people, I didn't realize there were two
sides to the story. Once I looked into it (as a result of Usenet
threads) I soon realized the pro-helmet side of the story was not only
weak, it was dishonest.

Since then, I've learned a lot about the issue. I've read many, many
research papers in the original. I've dug for lots of data on bike
safety from many sources. Based on what I've learned, I'm not going to
promote bike helmets. I'm not going to contribute to the lies I see
being spread.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:

>>>That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>>>REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>>
>>Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
>
>
> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
> LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.

Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
detriment to public health.

R.

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> This from a guy (?) who NAME-CALLED ("Do you always /lie/ to your
>> customers?") one of the most respected posters on here and has yet to
>> apologize for it. (You DID mis-read his comment, you know.) It was
>> rude and inappropriate and unprovoked.
>>
>
> You're wrong, twice.
>
> To say a statement is such-and-so is not name-calling.

You called him a liar. You're a liar for denying it.

 

[Sorni]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>>>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>>>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>>>
>>> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
>>
>>
>> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
>> caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
>
> Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
> detriment to public health.

That might be true (debatable), but since we weren't discussing MHLs...

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
>> LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
>
> What program to provide free lids?
>
> --
> Michael Press

Michael: There have been many local programs in the past, providing free
helmets to kids at the poorer schools in our area (Redwood City, CA). I'm
not aware of what's going on presently; these programs generally don't
involve local bike shops, but rather manufacturers dealing with schools
directly.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all caps!
> > LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
>
> What program to provide free lids?
>
> --
>

It was actually a link to a source for buying helmets very
inexpensively. It's the Troxel Safe Tech program; they will sell
helmets for, IIRC, under $10 to "recognized groups or organizations". I
suggested that Frank's bicycle club would qualify.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sorni
('[email protected]') wrote:

> jtaylor wrote:
>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>
>>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>>
>> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
>
> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
> caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.

If a thing does not work, making it free does not make it work. If a
thing increases danger, making it free still increases danger. Of
course, none of us really know under what circumstances helmets increase
risk, but we do know that overall they increase risk, so we know that in
the bulk of circumstances in which helmets are deployed, they increase
risk. Obviously, there are probably some - perhaps many - circumstances
in which helmets decrease risk, but we don't know what they are.

I wouldn't like to be the person who had handed out free helmets that
killed people.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >
> >>>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
> >>>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
> >>>
> >>> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
> >> caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
> >
> > Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
> > detriment to public health.
>
> That might be true (debatable), but since we weren't discussing MHLs...
>

It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit without also
supporting MHL's.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Sorni wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
> > >>>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
> > >> caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
> > >
> > > Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
> > > detriment to public health.
> >
> > That might be true (debatable), but since we weren't discussing MHLs...
> >
>
> It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit without also
> supporting MHL's.

********.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to jtaylor:
> It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit without also
> supporting MHL's.

Rubbish. It's pretty certain that eating five portions of
fruit/vegetables and exercising for half an hour every day would be a
net health benefit, but I wouldn't support a MF/V&EL.

--
Mark, UK
"'Michael Gilhaney,' said the Sergeant, 'is an example of a man that is
nearly banjaxed from the principle of the Atomic Theory. Would it
astonish you to hear that he is nearly half a bicycle?'"

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:

> It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit
> without also supporting MHL's.

Well, damn, "********" and "rubbish" have already been taken.

How about...utter ****?!?

 

[jtaylor]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Sorni
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>

> If a thing does not work, making it free does not make it work. If a
> thing increases danger, making it free still increases danger. Of
> course, none of us really know under what circumstances helmets increase
> risk, but we do know that overall they increase risk, so we know that in
> the bulk of circumstances in which helmets are deployed, they increase
> risk. Obviously, there are probably some - perhaps many - circumstances
> in which helmets decrease risk, but we don't know what they are.
>
> I wouldn't like to be the person who had handed out free helmets that
> killed people.
>

Or the person who blindly promoted helmets, calling those who pointed out
the facts against helmets "gasbags" and "assholes", and so promoted the MHL
that made people wear helmets if they wished to cycle, and so killed them.

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>>>>>REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>>>>
>>>>Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public health.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
>>>caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
>>
>>Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
>>detriment to public health.
>
>
> That might be true (debatable), but since we weren't discussing MHLs...

"yes they are [REQUIRED to wear helmets], in many countries" is
discussing MHL. Hint: REQUIRED == Mandatory.

R.

 

[Sorni]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't
>>>>>> REQUIRED to wear helmets,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they are, in many countries, to the detriment of public
>>>>> health.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet when Ozark mentioned programs to provide FREE (yes, FREE in all
>>>> caps! LOL) lids, Frank *****ed about that, too.
>>>
>>> Whether the helmets are free to the end user or not, MHL are still a
>>> detriment to public health.
>>
>>
>> That might be true (debatable), but since we weren't discussing
>> MHLs...
>
> "yes they are [REQUIRED to wear helmets], in many countries" is
> discussing MHL. Hint: REQUIRED == Mandatory.

Sigh. But the /topic/ was first "merits of hemlets" and then
"affordability". The side-issue of MHLs just keeps getting tossed in here
and there.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
>
> > It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit
> > without also supporting MHL's.
>
> Well, damn, "********" and "rubbish" have already been taken.
>
> How about...utter ****?!?


Ya gotta be quick on the trigger to get the *choice* expletives! ;-)

 

[Sorni]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>> It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit
>>> without also supporting MHL's.
>>
>> Well, damn, "********" and "rubbish" have already been taken.
>>
>> How about...utter ****?!?
>
>
> Ya gotta be quick on the trigger to get the *choice* expletives! ;-)

I just realized I could have used "Udder ****" to piggy-back yours!

Bill "today's theme: farm animal waste" S.