Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > And that's one more bit of rudeness, from the pro-helmet team toward
> > the helmet skeptics.
> >
> There are rude individuals on both sides of this topic, and the fact
> that one "side" may have been more rude than the other is no reason to
> tar all of those on either side of the question with the same brush. I
> thought you were better than that at drawing conclusions from
> observations. ;-)

Your reply is a bit ironic, isn't it, Rick?

Read what I said above. There's no claim that _all_ on one side are
guilty, nor that all on the other side are innocent. You've somehow
drawn a mistaken conclusion.

Still, it's clear that Sorni, Ozark and now Pirrero have been crudely
insulting through most of their posts. They justify this by pretending
any less-than-deferential statement by their opponents is somehow as
bad.

Any unbiased comparison shows that trio slings the vast majority of
rudeness, and almost no facts.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > And that's one more bit of rudeness, from the pro-helmet team toward
> > > the helmet skeptics.
> > >
> > There are rude individuals on both sides of this topic, and the fact
> > that one "side" may have been more rude than the other is no reason to
> > tar all of those on either side of the question with the same brush. I
> > thought you were better than that at drawing conclusions from
> > observations. ;-)
>
> Your reply is a bit ironic, isn't it, Rick?
>
> Read what I said above.

I suggest you read it yourself from the perspective of someone who
doesn't have access to your inner subtext.

> There's no claim that _all_ on one side are
> guilty, nor that all on the other side are innocent.

Thanks for clarifying your intent, but there was nothing in your
previous post to indicate that "pro-helmet team" is a subset of all
those who are pro-helmet.

> You've somehow
> drawn a mistaken conclusion.
>
Your term "pro-helmet team" without further clarification can be
logically interpreted as those who are pro-helmet, rather than the
subset who are both pro-helmet and rude.

I'd admit to irony, but there's another thread in which steel vs.
aluminum is under discussion, and I'd hate to contribute to the
controversy . . . ;-)

Rick

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>> And that's one more bit of rudeness, from the pro-helmet team toward
>>> the helmet skeptics.
>>>
>> There are rude individuals on both sides of this topic, and the fact
>> that one "side" may have been more rude than the other is no reason
>> to tar all of those on either side of the question with the same
>> brush. I thought you were better than that at drawing conclusions
>> from observations. ;-)
>
> Your reply is a bit ironic, isn't it, Rick?
>
> Read what I said above. There's no claim that _all_ on one side are
> guilty, nor that all on the other side are innocent. You've somehow
> drawn a mistaken conclusion.
>
> Still, it's clear that Sorni, Ozark and now Pirrero have been crudely
> insulting through most of their posts. They justify this by
> pretending any less-than-deferential statement by their opponents is
> somehow as bad.

Bzzt. Wrong. What is it about "went first" is too hard for you to grasp?

(Ooops. Forgot. You're incapable of seeing much less admitting the truth.
By bad.)

> Any unbiased comparison shows that trio slings the vast majority of
> rudeness, and almost no facts.

Your mother wore Army boots. (FACT...I'm guessing.)

 

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you read it yourself from the perspective of someone who
> doesn't have access to your inner subtext.

More irony? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I suggest you read it yourself from the perspective of someone who
>> doesn't have access to your inner subtext.
>
> More irony? ;-)

More like impossibility.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 21 Jun 2006 10:53:44 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>How? Rude is rude, no matter what your "perspective."

Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".

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

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 10:53:44 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >How? Rude is rude, no matter what your "perspective."
>
> Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
> and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".

In any sub-thread, picking the instigator is dead-simple.

The excuses of "everybody does it", "all usenet conversations get that
way", "can't determine who fired the opening salvo", "(s)he's weary of
explaining the same thing over and over", etc. are all excuses. And
poor ones. The way I see it is that if you can't condemn it from the
folks who share your opinion on the subject, it's best you don't bring
the issue up.

Even the excuse of "he did it first" is pretty damn crappy. I
recognize that, as well.

E.P.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 27 Jun 2006 15:00:25 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
>> and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".

>In any sub-thread, picking the instigator is dead-simple.

Not really relevant. You can't put your finger on the first person
who makes an uncivil comment, because what constitutes uncivil depends
on the audience. For example, characterising an opinion which
contradicts with fact as absurd is perfectly reasonable, unless you
happen to hold as a religious tenet the absolute truth of that
opinion. Helmet wars have more in common with creationism vs.
evolution than anything else. It is people's deep-seated religious
beliefs which are being challenged.

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

 

[jtaylor]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Jun 2006 10:53:44 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >How? Rude is rude, no matter what your "perspective."
>
> Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
> and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".
>
> Guy
> --

For this thread, that's been done.

Did you miss my pun about Sorni?

"Fowl-mouthed right out of the nest"

 

[jtaylor]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 27 Jun 2006 15:00:25 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
> >> and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".
>
> >In any sub-thread, picking the instigator is dead-simple.
>
> Not really relevant. You can't put your finger on the first person
> who makes an uncivil comment, because what constitutes uncivil depends
> on the audience. For example, characterising an opinion which
> contradicts with fact as absurd is perfectly reasonable, unless you
> happen to hold as a religious tenet the absolute truth of that
> opinion. Helmet wars have more in common with creationism vs.
> evolution than anything else. It is people's deep-seated religious
> beliefs which are being challenged.
>

Guy, only one side in the helmet debates is dependent upon religion.

It is true that when such beliefs are shown to be scientifically invalid,
they get upset; but presenting the truth can never be considered uncivil.

 

[Peter Clinch]

jtaylor wrote:

> It is true that when such beliefs are shown to be scientifically invalid,
> they get upset; but presenting the truth can never be considered uncivil.

After all, nobody has /ever/ blamed the messenger... ;-/

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/

 

[Bill Sornson]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 21 Jun 2006 10:53:44 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> said in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> How? Rude is rude, no matter what your "perspective."
>>
>> Sure. But it's not easy to parse a thread of escalating tetchiness
>> and put a finger on who, precisely, was the first to be "rude".
>>
>> Guy
>> --
>
> For this thread, that's been done.
>
> Did you miss my pun about Sorni?
>
> "Fowl-mouthed right out of the nest"

Ah, yes, your brilliant riposte. Only problem was that it referred to
Frank's link of (allegedly) my very first post in...well, /some/ thread, and
my "fowl-mouthed" (sic) comment was a light-hearted "What a maroon" (quote
courtesy of one Bugs Bunny). And, of course, it wasn't directed at any of
the "principals" in these hi-browed discourses, anyway.

Yes, it was a scathing blow to the long-forgotten recipient, and I'm sure he
appreciates your making him relive the pain over and over and over again.

Too bad you were too lazy to check it yourself.

jtaylor: what a maroon...times ten.

 

[jtaylor]

"dabac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> jtaylor Wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One death per roughly 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a
> > day,
> > > > 365 days a year.
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Just how frightened of cyciling is he?
> > >
> > > "Cyciling"? I'm so frightened of /cycling/ that I do it at least 5
> > days a
> > > week and have put over 15,000 miles on my bikes in the last three
> > years
> > > (less than that actually). Perhaps the very fact that I *do* ride a
> > lot
> > > contributes to my decision to wear a helmet: the more you do
> > something
> > the
> > > greater the chances of /eventually/ having a mishap.
> >
> > Well, lesse...assuming you go at an average of 10 mph, and assuming
> > your
> > numbers above are accurate, at 5000 miles per year, you are doing 500
> > hours
> > a year. You have to do this every year from now on until you were
> > almost
> > eight thousand years old before the chance of you having an injury
> > that
> > would kill you is unity.
> >
> > I guess that cycling is not that dangerous, is it.
> >
> > Kind of begs the question, why do you wear a helmet?
>
> Why are people so keen on disregarding the other benefits of a helmet
> even if it won't be able to save your life in any larger extent? I'd be
> quite happy to wear one even if it "only" would be able to protect me
> from split eyebrows and similar injuries. There are more nuances than
> life-or-death to this issue, and I'm quite confident that helmets do a
> decent job of protecting against a wide variety of non-critical
> injuries.

Because the population-level statistics show that helmets are best no help,
and much more likely a disbenefit to cyclists; and that helmet laws, which
helmet wearing and helmet wearers promote, are a positive hazard to
cyclists.

Cycling's not dangerous.

Helmets don't protect.

Helmet laws are a net societal health cost.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]>typed
> >
> >
> >> Ah, but you /will/ be better off if you fall and hit (or scrape or
> >> slide or bounce) your head. May not likely happen, but it's
> >> certainly possible.
> >
> > How do you know?
> > You /might/ be better off if you fall and hit your (helmetted) head.
> > You might not.
> >
> > That's the whole point of this tiresome discussion.
>
> Agreed. Up to each to make up his or her mind then.

Not everywhere; in 37 of the United States and in large antipodean countries
there are MHL's. They came about because cycle helmets were invented - in
spite of the fact that they have no net health benefit - and people started
thinking that cycling was a dangerous activity, BECAUSE some people were
wearing helmets. Now we have legislators saying that helmet compulsion WILL
be introduced when the wearing reate raches a certain threshold.

Your wearing of a helmet reduces my choice.

 

[jtaylor]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:11:59 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >If by chance you mean I'm not using "total population" figures, that's
> >exactly the point, Grimey. The efficacy (AND cost-effectiveness) of
helmets
> >is found on an /individual/ basis. (MHLs excepted from consideration.)
>
> An amusing conceit, but false. You can't predict in advance which
> people are the ones who are going to fall off their bikes. All you
> can do is look at the population in aggregate and see if there is any
> measurable effect. As has been pointed out before, anything else is
> tantamount to assessing your chances of winning the lottery by
> interviewing only the winners.
>

Sorni's been up this road before; he's decided that he wears a helmet
because he can choose which type of mishap he'll have, and that those kinds
are what he claims that helmets can mitigate. He's not going to fall and
get a rotational injury, or get his neck strap caught so that it strargles
him, or be injuread in any other of the ways in which a helmet is a positive
menace to cyclists.

Why not?

He's a special snowflake, different from all the rest of us.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? a écrit :
> > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:11:59 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >
> >> If by chance you mean I'm not using "total population" figures, that's
> >> exactly the point, Grimey. The efficacy (AND cost-effectiveness) of
helmets
> >> is found on an /individual/ basis. (MHLs excepted from consideration.)
> >>
> >
> > An amusing conceit, but false. You can't predict in advance which
> > people are the ones who are going to fall off their bikes. All you
> > can do is look at the population in aggregate and see if there is any
> > measurable effect.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> Perhaps your words are being helpful. Prediction is not a value of
> population level statistics, while concerned with any single event.

No.

Absent any other data, it is exactly their value.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> jtaylor listed some of Sorni's rude and childish comments, such as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "popmous gasbag"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "asshole"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "faceless numbskulls"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "smarmy"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "jackass"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Weasel Boy"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "dottering, arrogant old coot"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "UK gits"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Smarmy Geezer Gazoo"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Scare mongerer" (sic)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "intellectually dishonest"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "hypocrite"
> >>>>
> >
> > Sorni responded:
> >>
> >> Some of them are more personally abusive than others. Wonder what
> >> prompted such outbursts?
> >
> > If you truly believe you were returning like for like, I wonder why
> > you're incapable of demonstrating that by direct quote?
>


> BTW, I /know/ I was returning like for like.

Cite please.

Afterall, you are the one who "knows" - in spite of the masses of data to
the contrary - that helmet wearing is "a smart thing to do"; why should this
statement of yours be any more believeable? Back it up.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:05:58 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Tell the truth and run.
> >> -- Yugoslavian Proverb
> >> (I should have tried that one)
>
> > Yes, either of those options would have been an improvement.
>
> Good one.
>
> No one admires a clean, hard shot more than I; it's the dishonest,
> mean-spirited, judgmental and condescending ones that I find despicable.
>


Do you mean like these:

"popmous gasbag"

"asshole"

"faceless numbskulls"

"smarmy"

"jackass"

"Weasel Boy"

"dottering, arrogant old coot"

"UK gits"

"Smarmy Geezer Gazoo"

"Scare mongerer" (sic)

"intellectually dishonest"

"hypocrite"

and the starting of threads accusing people who disagree with you of having
deviant sexual practices?

 

[jtaylor]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:44:55 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>


> >
> >Brilliant! Let's start a "POLL" (ahem) of everyone who's ever gone on a
> >bike ride and not taken a fall on that particular bike ride!
> >
> >This could be a /really/ long thread...
>
> That's part of the point -- the vast majority of bike rides do not
> include falls.
>

Gee, makes ya' think -

Why do people even wear helmets - they're not going to do any good, and even
if they did, well, nobody would actually need one!

 

[jtaylor]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:30 GMT, "Sorni"
> >
> >Thanks for making my point with a cheap shot -- after removing context,
of
> >course!
> >(It's uncanny.)
>
> You're so weak with this "removed" context whining. Please, go read
> some other very intense debate on RBR that doesn't involve you.
> You'll notice that this "removed context" thing rarely if every comes
> up -- because there usually nothing wrong with it. It's normal and
> appropriate on usenet.

Sorni has all the hallmarks of a usenet newbie, and the arguing techniques
of a pre-teen; a poor combination when he is as determined as he seems to be
to show the world the extent of his debating skills.