Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Sorni]

Paul Murphy wrote:
> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:-Tr*[email protected]...
>> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>> And there's no proof there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in your
>>>> garage.
>>>> That doesn't mean we have no right to be sceptical of claims there
>>>> are.
>>> There a big difference between being sceptical about claims and
>>> what has gone on here though. There has been lots of sarcasm
>>> directed my way even though its not constructive and messages would
>>> be more effective without the
>>> sarcasm.
>>
>> That I am being sarcastic doesn't make you any less wrong.
>
> I'm glad you're not attempting to deny your scarcastic attitude
> issues. It would make it easier to respect you if you were assertive
> here rather than aggressive/hostile. I've already mentioned "we
> disagree" nothing more needs to be said.

Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun yellow/hot.
(For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb that's up in space.)

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun yellow/hot.
>(For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb that's up in space.)

In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
correct than you.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Paul Murphy]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9ss*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>It's not up to me to provide evidence I've won the lottery.
>>>>The point is I'm not challenging you about whether you've won the
>>>>lottery
>>>>and frankly its none of my businees if you said you had anyway.
>>>However, if I said I had before the draw or before the results are known,
>>>you'd be quite right to mock me.
>>No, I'd want to check out the facts when they are known.
>
> You don't think I'd be wrong to proclaim that I'd won the lottery before
> the draw? I see. You obviously live in some strange alternative universe
> where talking total rubbish is perfectly normal. That explains a lot.

I've already made this clear, I wouldn't mock you if you claimed to have won
the lottery (whether you had or hadn't) and it would be none of my business
either way.

Paul

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > And for sure there are long,
> > > > > long arguments about politics in "daily life." Maybe not in one's
> > > > > home, but they exist off-line as well.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I understand that as well. But when cases are discussed about why
> > > > someone would wear a helmet, even if he/she knew there wasn't a safety
> > > > benefit - well, I gave an example. I'm not sure that enough data has
> > > > been collected to make a categorical statement that a helmet has little
> > > > if any value in any particular circumstance, so I keep in mind that it
> > > > is possible that a helmet is helpful in some cases.
> > >
> > > Is there insufficient enough data to render helmet laws
> > > unsupportable?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > That query doesn't make sense to me.
>
> You say that there is not enough data to support saying
> that a helmet has little or no value in any particular
> case.

That's *part* of what I said.


> I see this assertion as removing any support for
> mandatory helmet laws.

I never had any support for MHLs to begin with.

E.P.

 

[Paul Murphy]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qvv*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>It's obvious. If just about everyone's self-knowledge is erroneous, why
>>>suppose yours is special?
>>Are you saying that you conform to every statistical norm and that there
>>is
>>nothing at all out of the ordinary about you? It's not unusual for people
>>to
>>have some "statistical abnormalities".
>
> However, when you don't have any actual information on what those
> abnormalities are, it's absurd to leap to the conclusion that there must
> be some very specific abnormality that happens to suit oneself. Like not
> risk compensating.

So its OK for you to use statistics on your side but I cant on mine?

>>What makes you think that my level of self knowledge is the same as those
>>who are wrong?
>
> There's absolutely no reason to suppose it's not. What makes you suppose
> my level of having won the lottery is the same as almost everyone else's?

Even if I wanted to go into that further (which I dont particularly want to
as its way OTT) that doesn't make sense.

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1R%[email protected]...
> Paul Murphy wrote:
>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:-Tr*[email protected]...
>>> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>> And there's no proof there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in your
>>>>> garage.
>>>>> That doesn't mean we have no right to be sceptical of claims there
>>>>> are.
>>>> There a big difference between being sceptical about claims and
>>>> what has gone on here though. There has been lots of sarcasm
>>>> directed my way even though its not constructive and messages would
>>>> be more effective without the
>>>> sarcasm.
>>>
>>> That I am being sarcastic doesn't make you any less wrong.
>>
>> I'm glad you're not attempting to deny your scarcastic attitude
>> issues. It would make it easier to respect you if you were assertive
>> here rather than aggressive/hostile. I've already mentioned "we
>> disagree" nothing more needs to be said.
>
> Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun yellow/hot.
> (For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb that's up in space.)

Yes I vaguely remember one of those from my time in the antipodes ;-)

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun yellow/hot.
>>(For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb that's up in space.)
>
> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
> correct than you.

I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic responses to be
a negative point though, this would mean his score is well into the
negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's been so illogical that some
of his posts can't be understood/don't even make sense. Until I start seeing
less aggression and more "thought out" responses there's no way he has my
vote.

Paul

 

[Sorni]

Paul Murphy wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun
>>> yellow/hot. (For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb
>>> that's up in space.)
>>
>> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
>> correct than you.
>
> I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic
> responses to be a negative point though, this would mean his score is
> well into the negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's been so
> illogical that some of his posts can't be understood/don't even make
> sense. Until I start seeing less aggression and more "thought out"
> responses there's no way he has my vote.

Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's said or
written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough for them to know
what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly (and often rudely and
unfairly) based solely on that.

HTH, B

 

[Paul Murphy]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsgb*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>In that case you wont mind if I disassociate myself (note this doesn't
>>mean
>>disagree) from other groups. Its not up to me to explain other peoples
>>behaviour.
>
> Yes, it is. If you assert that all experts have their biases and therefore
> can be dismissed, it _is_ incumbent on you to explain how people with a
> pro-helmet bias reached an anti-helmet conclusion!

Yet again... we disagree. So what now? Are you going to say I'm wrong again
or be aggressive and if so, what good will that do and what would you hope
to achieve?

>>>Jay Beattie wants to dismiss "experts" because they all have an agenda:
>>>I don't think any ordinary person understands most of the gobledy gook
>>>about why one study is valid and another is not. You obviously have an
>>>agenda,
>>Your thinking and its actually wrong - no agenda here!
>
> It might be if I actually wrote that.

Well the way you transcribed it into the post I responded to, there weren't
the same indentations as here. I followed what appeared to be your words in
your post. Just to clear this up now are you now saying you're not accusing
me of having an agenda after all?

>>>How then do you explain the experts - many of whom post to this thread -
>>>who started out with the agenda of confirming their belief in helmets and
>>>reached the opposite conclusion? Does that make you suspicious?
>>>You produce the first piece of nonsense:
>>>Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
>>>regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely impartial
>>>throughout?
>>Why is it nonsense given that I was asking a question?
>
> Because the implication is a ridiculous and insulting one.

Only if you believe there's anything wrong with what I said. Any
"implication" is in the eye of the implicatee.... (whatever the term is for
the person who assumes implications).

>>If you believe all experts are right, all the time, that then we disagree.
>
> Who says I do?

Hence the "If".
..
> The point is - again, and do try to understand this time -
> that to explain the people who started pro-biased and finished anti- with
> this question, you have to suggest they _all_ had a hidden agenda.

Please understand this in return, about the only things I have to do is die
(eventually) and pay taxes (unless I move to some far off place), I dont
have to suggest or explain anything. If you ask me nicely, in a
non-patronising way, I may choose to respond differently however.

>>It was my original post in response to another persons post about trusting
>>experts.
>
> Actually, it was a reply to a post of mine.

You're correct, it was you.

>>>If it's to explain those people it has to
>>>apply to most or all of them; and it's both ridiculous and insulting to
>>>suggest they all had secret anti- agendas all along. Are you suggesting
>>>that?
>>See all my other previous post details - I questioned whether this can be
>>totally ruled out and so far no-one is willing to do this (including
>>yourself).
>
> Because it's completely irrelevant to explaining the bulk of such people
> unless you are willing to apply this insulting implication to all of them.

Black and white thinking.

>>Feel free to correct me if you believe I'm wrong though, in other
>>words if you believe that no "people who started pro- and finished anti"
>>did
>>so deliberately in order to create the impression that the evidence for
>>this
>>viewpoint was so compelling.
>
> Personally it seems an utterly demented suggestion but even if it were
> correct it would not get us closer to explaining away the bulk of people
> who reached a conclusion opposite their bias.

But the point is nobody can explain why everyone has come to their
individual conclusions without knowing all those people. I cant see why
"utterly demented" comes into it unless you just want to be aggressive again
for the sake of it.

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Murphy wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun
>>>> yellow/hot. (For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb
>>>> that's up in space.)
>>>
>>> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
>>> correct than you.
>>
>> I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic
>> responses to be a negative point though, this would mean his score is
>> well into the negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's been so
>> illogical that some of his posts can't be understood/don't even make
>> sense. Until I start seeing less aggression and more "thought out"
>> responses there's no way he has my vote.
>
> Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's said or
> written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough for them to know
> what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly (and often rudely and
> unfairly) based solely on that.
>
> HTH, B

Just as long as we (and others) are aware thats often the case.

Paul

 

[Alan Braggins]

Paul Murphy wrote:
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
>> correct than you.
>
>I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic responses to be
>a negative point though, this would mean his score is well into the
>negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's been so illogical that some
>of his posts can't be understood/don't even make sense. Until I start seeing
>less aggression and more "thought out" responses there's no way he has my
>vote.

He's not appealing for a popularity vote, he's pointing out facts to you.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> I've already given you the reference to the data, as much as you can
> >> believe data from TRT, and a summary of the conclusions. Feel free to
> >> go and read it. You can also read:
> >
> > I don't believe them.
>
> Most people outside the PHZ lobby don't believe TRT either but a
> reputable scientist would only say they didn't believe it after reading
> the paper which you clearly haven't.

You almost had me there - I thought you were serious there for a
second. Good one.

If the researcher is shown to be poor in his/her data collection and
/or interpretation, subsequent writings are often questioned before any
reading occurs.

If TRT can't get one study right, why should some other research be
taken at face value? If the data/conclusions can't be trusted in one
paper, why is a different one worthy?

> >> Bicycle helmet assessment during well visits reveals severe shortcomings
> >> in condition and fit, Parkinson GW, Hike KE. Pediatrics: 2003, Vol 112,
> >> Iss 2, pp 320-3 and
> >>
> >> Cycle helmets: fit to buy or bought to fit? McCool J. Proc. 3rd
> >> International Conference on Injury Prevention 1996
> >>
> >> on helmet fit. But remember the spectrum of excellent to poor fit
> >> helmets applies just as equally to all the helmet studies
> >
> > I do not believe that, either. Folks who took the time to wear a
> > helmet before compulsion would *most likely* try and wear it properly.
>
> You haven't read the two papers I suggested above have you.

Yes, I read the first. For some reason, I cannot access the second.

[snip asshattedness]

Kids don't wear helmets properly. And, the way they wear them
improperly exposes their heads to the most common type of bicycling
head injury - the frontal impact.

A couple of things come from this - the less people that wear them
properly, the less we really know about the efficacy of a properly-worn
helmet.

Rotational injuries saeem to be a small subset of bicycling head
injuries, which is a pretty small number to begin with.

> > After compulsion, the additional folks wouldn't care. And the studies
> > don't discriminate between these two group, AFAIK.
> >
> > Assuming that the properly-wearing proportion is the same before and
> > after is a questionable assumption, IMO.
>
> Pure speculation. Do you have any evidence? Have you read any of the
> relevant research papers?

The evidence is called *logic*. Try using it. If the assumptions and
conclusions are flawed, then you should be able to easily point out the
flaws. Go ahead. Show me the data that shows the habits of the two
groups.

E.P.

 

[Tony Raven]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> Rotational injuries saeem to be a small subset of bicycling head
> injuries, which is a pretty small number to begin with.
>

You haven't read Curnow then.

>
> The evidence is called *logic*. Try using it. If the assumptions and
> conclusions are flawed, then you should be able to easily point out the
> flaws. Go ahead. Show me the data that shows the habits of the two
> groups.
>

Its not logic. You have made a proposition that people who took to
wearing helmets through compulsion wear them differently from those that
were already wearing them, thus skewing the post MHL statistics compared
to pre MHL. If you make a proposition it is up to you to produce some
evidence to support it - saying you wish it so and calling it logic does
not count. Otherwise we quickly get back to Russell's Teapot.

So where is your evidence?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Sorni]

Paul Murphy wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's
>> said or written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough
>> for them to know what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly
>> (and often rudely and unfairly) based solely on that.

> Just as long as we (and others) are aware thats often the case.

Something occurred to me earlier today: no one (other than the handful of
us miscreant participants) is reading this drivel anyway. Eventually the
bullies will win (by wearing us down and outlasting us due to sheer
numbers), but it's meaningless so no big loss.

Meanwhile, it's fun to tweak their noses and make weird sounds to aggravate
'em...

BS (really)

 

[Ed Pirrero]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> > After compulsion, the additional folks wouldn't care. And the studies
> > don't discriminate between these two group, AFAIK.
>
> Hmm. "AFAIK"? You seem adept at constructing rationalizations for
> disproving available data.

Where, in the studies cited, are these two groups separated and
controlled for? I don't see it. If you would be so kind, please point
it out.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> > Rotational injuries saeem to be a small subset of bicycling head
> > injuries, which is a pretty small number to begin with.
> >
>
> You haven't read Curnow then.

Your first paper cited in this sub-thread thus contradicts Curnow.
Which one is correct?

I'm going by the paper YOU cited! Now you want to use another paper to
disprove the previous one. Fine - leave me out of it.

> > The evidence is called *logic*. Try using it. If the assumptions and
> > conclusions are flawed, then you should be able to easily point out the
> > flaws. Go ahead. Show me the data that shows the habits of the two
> > groups.
> >
>
> Its not logic.

It absolutely is. In the absense of hard data, you have to use your
head a bit. No data exists for what I'm trying to get at. So, let's
*form a hypothesis.* If the hypothesis is no good, then we'll refine
and go from there. You don't just throw up your hands and say "there's
no data!" You start first with the hypothesis, then go from there.

> You have made a proposition that people who took to
> wearing helmets through compulsion wear them differently from those that
> were already wearing them, thus skewing the post MHL statistics compared
> to pre MHL.

And so far, we have found that children - most all children, don't wear
helmets correctly. OK. That means that correct wearers are an even
SMALLER portion of overall wearers, and thus their effect on the data
set is likewise smaller.

> If you make a proposition it is up to you to produce some
> evidence to support it

I did. It's called LOGIC. Refute the logic, if you can. If you
can't, stop complaining. Your claim of "no data" is a red herring. If
the question has not been addressed in the existing studies, then there
is some room for additional data collection and refinement of
conclusions.

E.P.

E.P.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Paul Murphy <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Paul Murphy wrote:
>>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun
>>>>> yellow/hot. (For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb
>>>>> that's up in space.)
>>>>
>>>> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
>>>> correct than you.
>>>
>>> I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic
>>> responses to be a negative point though, this would mean his score
>>> is well into the negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's
>>> been so illogical that some of his posts can't be understood/don't
>>> even make sense. Until I start seeing less aggression and more
>>> "thought out" responses there's no way he has my vote.
>>
>> Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's
>> said or written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough
>> for them to know what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly
>> (and often rudely and unfairly) based solely on that.
>>
>> HTH, B
>
> Just as long as we (and others) are aware thats often the case.
>
> Paul

He had a habit, some time back, of using two dashes (someone explained this)
as a personal protest to Outlook Express users. Being one, it was
delightful, as his text did not appear, ever, unless someone with another
program replied to him.

It is sad he gave up that useful habit.

 

[Sorni]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> Paul Murphy <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Paul Murphy wrote:
>>>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:55:57 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling Damnitall aggressive/hostile is like calling the sun
>>>>>> yellow/hot. (For you UK-ers, the "sun" is a giant glowing orb
>>>>>> that's up in space.)
>>>>>
>>>>> In this discussion, he's also been far more factually/logically
>>>>> correct than you.
>>>>
>>>> I (and many proper debaters) consider aggressive, scarcastic
>>>> responses to be a negative point though, this would mean his score
>>>> is well into the negatives. In terms of the responses to me he's
>>>> been so illogical that some of his posts can't be understood/don't
>>>> even make sense. Until I start seeing less aggression and more
>>>> "thought out" responses there's no way he has my vote.
>>>
>>> Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's
>>> said or written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough
>>> for them to know what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly
>>> (and often rudely and unfairly) based solely on that.
>>>
>>> HTH, B
>>
>> Just as long as we (and others) are aware thats often the case.
>>
>> Paul
>
> He had a habit, some time back, of using two dashes (someone
> explained this) as a personal protest to Outlook Express users. Being one,
> it was delightful, as his text did not appear, ever,
> unless someone with another program replied to him.
>
> It is sad he gave up that useful habit.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that. A blissful week, that. :-D

 

[Sorni]

Paul Murphy wrote (of Damnitall but applies to many AHZs):

> Yet again... we disagree. So what now? Are you going to say I'm wrong
> again or be aggressive and if so, what good will that do and what
> would you hope to achieve?

It's not enough to express disagreement, Paul. They have to show their
(self- and loudly proclaimed) superiority by belittling and trying to
embarrass you. It's good to see you not roll over and just take it, as it's
what they're counting on you doing.

> Please understand this in return, about the only things I have to do
> is die (eventually) and pay taxes (unless I move to some far off
> place), I dont have to suggest or explain anything. If you ask me
> nicely, in a non-patronising way, I may choose to respond differently
> however.

Cold day in hell, but it /could/ happen. (Not with Damnitall though.)

> But the point is nobody can explain why everyone has come to their
> individual conclusions without knowing all those people. I cant see
> why "utterly demented" comes into it unless you just want to be
> aggressive again for the sake of it.

You're getting warmer.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:05:27 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Murphy wrote:
>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> Paul, these guys don't actually consider the /meaning/ of what's
>>> said or written -- and God knows not the /context/ -- it's enough
>>> for them to know what "side" you're on and then attack relentlessly
>>> (and often rudely and unfairly) based solely on that.
>
>> Just as long as we (and others) are aware thats often the case.
>
>Something occurred to me earlier today: no one (other than the handful of
>us miscreant participants) is reading this drivel anyway.

I'm not disputing or supporting your comment, but it's odd of you to
say that on the day when at least one person joined this thread for
the first time.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************