Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Sigh. I'll put it back:

>
> Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
> rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing more
> than comedy value anyway.


OK, Tony, whatever you say.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:40:05 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>>> While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban
>>>> helmets, they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/
>>>> for choosing to wear them.

>
>>> Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*

>
>> I cite Flailor and Blurt. My /introduction/ to them was being
>> attacked merely for stating my choice to wear a lid. (Feel free to
>> Google if you doubt it; pretty sure they'd freely admit it, however.)

>
> Please give the posting IDs for the posts in which either of these two
> posters (whose names I do not recognise from this thread,
> incidentally) have advocated a law banning helmet use.


I take it back about Blurt -- he just chimed in later and began humping away
(still to this day). "jtaylor" (AKA Flailor) is the one who jumped on me
/and others/ for merely saying we choose to wear lids. (It's really not
worth my time and trouble to go find his and others' MANY posts like that;
it matters not, anyway.) BTW, somewhere in there is when this **** first
began getting cross-posted to the UK group(s).

> And you were not being attacked for choosing to wear a polystyrene
> foam deflector beanie, at least not by me


Did you see your name mentioned? It's not all about you, Guy, despite your
most fervent wishes.

>- my problem all along has
> been with your asserting that your opinion based on prejudice has
> equal validity with one based on evidence. I have said this several
> times.


Yup. And it sounds just as silly and meaningless each time you say it.

HTH
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

>> been with your asserting that your opinion based on prejudice has
>> equal validity with one based on evidence. I have said this several
>> times.

>
> Yup. And it sounds just as silly and meaningless each time you say it.


And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> > in <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> Sigh. I'll put it back:

> >
> > Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
> > rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing more
> > than comedy value anyway.

>
> OK, Tony, whatever you say.
>


Holy shitoly! Is it ever going to end?

Greg
--
"What have you got in that paper bag?
Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
Ain't got no time for Western medicine
I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith
 
G.T. wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
>>> in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Sigh. I'll put it back:
>>>
>>> Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
>>> rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing
>>> more than comedy value anyway.

>>
>> OK, Tony, whatever you say.
>>

>
> Holy shitoly! Is it ever going to end?
>
> Greg


Guy's smugness? Nah.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0700, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >"Guy" is pulling the slack whilst the Great Leader Raven is away.

>
> Dr Raven is not my leader, but I would not mind if he were.
>


You can join "jtaylor" in a boot licking festival. Perhaps the Great
Leader will pat you both on the head. Enjoy!


> >Of course, as we know, slack isn't the only thing "Guy" is apt to be
> >pulling.

>
> Yup. Your leg, for example.



There *is* a difference between pulling a leg and humping a leg, "Guy".
Quit yer humping.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.


OK, one last time Straw Man Scharf. You claim all the data which other
people have posted is "junk science" despite the fact that it has been
peer-reviewed and found to be reliable. You make claims about research
which you say shows that helmets are effective, but you continually refuse
to post any references (apart from one, which said exactly the opposite to
what you said it did).

Put up or shut up. Either post links to research which is peer-reviewed and
shows what you claim or stop posting.

If you can't you're just a time-wasting troll, deluded to the extreme.
 
SMS wrote:

> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.


Having read a fair bit of it (not as much as Guy and Tony) I have found
the holes in the population studies to be orders of magnitude smaller
than the holes in the case-control work. So I distrust the latter
considerably more. It's not about prejudice, it's about the population
being reproducible and the case-control having methodological bloopers
on a frightening scale and results that are quantitavely all over the
place, a clear and direct piece of evidence that they aren't any good.
In short, it calls attention to itself as junk science. That the
population studies are junk is based on, errrr, you saying so.

As for opinions based on prejudice, let's have a look at
http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=777

The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot! It's transparently
obvious from that that Scharf has either a chip on his shoulder or is
just incapable of being the just-the-facts honest broker he likes to
portray himself as.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:52:26 GMT, "Burt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
>> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
>> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.

>
>OK, one last time Straw Man Scharf. You claim all the data which other
>people have posted is "junk science" despite the fact that it has been
>peer-reviewed and found to be reliable. You make claims about research
>which you say shows that helmets are effective, but you continually refuse
>to post any references (apart from one, which said exactly the opposite to
>what you said it did).
>
>Put up or shut up. Either post links to research which is peer-reviewed and
>shows what you claim or stop posting.
>
>If you can't you're just a time-wasting troll, deluded to the extreme.
>

So says burp the hypocrite.
I've asked you questions and never got any answers. So that makes you
a pathetic weasel and a total hypocrite.


Life is Good!
Jeff
 
Jeff Starr wrote:

> So says burp the hypocrite.
> I've asked you questions and never got any answers. So that makes you
> a pathetic weasel and a total hypocrite.


LOL. Since when is anyone required to answer every troll in a thread.
Burt's been kill-filed for a long time, I don't even see his **** except
in follow-ups. He's free to go back to the old helmet threads where I
have provided extensive cites and references. I'm certainly not going to
do his work for him!
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!


That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so. Is he
doing it to set a good example for his children? If so, I must be a
terrible father, because I often go out helmet-less, while my kids are
required by law to wear a helmet. What a bad example I am setting!

Or maybe the magazine required him to wear a helmet for the photograph.
 
SMS wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> > The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> > cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> > is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!

>
> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.



Here we have a shrill, strident, very vocal, self-described "helmet
sceptic", someone who is convinced that helmets are of no benefit, who
lives in dread of a MHL and who believes that "every helmet worn is a
silent vote for compulsion", and what does he do? He allows himself to
be photographed wearing a helmet and to have that photograph ON THE
COVER of an "internationally distributed cycling culture magazine"!

Makes sense to me!!!




> Is he
> doing it to set a good example for his children? If so, I must be a
> terrible father, because I often go out helmet-less, while my kids are
> required by law to wear a helmet. What a bad example I am setting!
>
> Or maybe the magazine required him to wear a helmet for the photograph.



And, perhaps, vanity got the better of his "helmet scepticism"!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> > The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> > cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> > is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!

>
> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.


I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

Rick
 
SMS wrote:

> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.


Not a law, but a race rule in that case, IIRC.
But a "zealot" wouldn't even own one, let alone use one for a small
number of events. So it's not "amusing", it's a simple
demonstration that you're posting with a chip on your shoulder
rather than conveying straightforward facts.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.


Exactly right. They're USED junkily. :-D
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> > I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> > simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

>
> Exactly right. They're USED junkily. :-D



Yep, it's when those skewed inferences are presented as "fact" that the
problems begin.
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.


That's a fair comment. Though it's worth noting that not everyone
is doing that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed


> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:


> > I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> > simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.


> That's a fair comment. Though it's worth noting that not everyone
> is doing that.


Indeed.

"All lies and jest,
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest..."

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
>>> cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
>>> is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!

>> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
>> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
>> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.

>
> I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.


Yes, that is an accurate statement, at least in some cases.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Here we have a shrill, strident, very vocal, self-described "helmet
> sceptic", someone who is convinced that helmets are of no benefit, who
> lives in dread of a MHL and who believes that "every helmet worn is a
> silent vote for compulsion", and what does he do? He allows himself to
> be photographed wearing a helmet and to have that photograph ON THE
> COVER of an "internationally distributed cycling culture magazine"!
>
> Makes sense to me!!!


Hmm, are there three votes for compulsion in that photograph?