Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[jtaylor]

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

> Sometimes an outburst (like "kiss my ass") is more /polite/ (in that it's
> honest and direct) than arrogantly calling people stupid, saying they
can't
> read or think critically, that their teachers didn't do a good job with
> them, that it's all over their head, etc. etc. etc.
>
> The latter are more hurtful and mean-spirited, IMO, than short expressions
> of anger.
>

The problem is, that commets of the type...

"pompous gasbag"

"asshole"

"jackass"

and things like starting a thread accusing another poster of deviant sexual
practices...

are ad hominem attacks. They have no place in a reasonable debate, because
they have nothing to do with the topic or the posters approach to presenting
his or her view.

Things like saying someone cannot read or think properly, is innumerate,
etcetera, are descriptions of actions (or the lack of them) which can be
(and have been, in the instant case) descriptions of the actions of posters
as they put their points of view; and as such, are completely within the
scope of the discussion.

Especially if they are true - like someone who cannot or will not do the
maths that show that helmets cost more than they benefit, or that walking is
as or more dangerous than cycling, or that rotational injuries are more
likely than injuries that have no rotational component, and so on.

Now, you've _already_ admitted that your calling people "asshole",
"jackass', "gasbag" and the starting of the deviant sexual practice thread
ARE abusive. Why are you still defending your actions of this nature?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> I don't CARE what (their) injury rates and trends are with and without
helmets, as they have no
> bearing on /my/ particular bike riding habits.
>

How can you choose what kind of mishaps you will have, Sorni?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >
> >> The latter, of course. Riding a skinny-tired bike at relatively
> >> high speeds (compared to walking & running) over uneven surfaces and
> >> in traffic is quite a bit trickier (requires a good deal more
> >> balance and coordination) IMO than walking.
> >
> > Tell that to all the people that get injured walking. There are lots
> > of them, why shouldn't /they/ use *their* experience to inform their
> > future protection choices?
>
> They're perfectly free to do so; who's stopping them?!?
>


The problem is not that anyone is stopping them from using helmets, but that
pro-helmet zealots are stopping the rest of us from not using them.

Again: do you know of any legislation BANNING helmets?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >
> >> Which proves that total population studies are worthless in
> >> predicting individual risk and behaviors and should not be used
> >> /solely/ (if at all) to make decisions about one's activities. You
> >> really think walking is as tricky as riding a road bike in traffic
> >> and at high speeds?!?
> >
> > It's not a matter of being "tricky", it's a matter of doing it safely.
> > Walking is /so/ easy people don't pay any attention, much unlike
> > cycling at speed. Walking also has potentially many more right of
> > way conflicts with traffic. And these factors mean that per unit
> > distance more people get seriously injured walking than cycling.
>
> So why aren't you out there campaigning for PSAs (Public Service
> Announcements) for Walking Safety?
>
> Sounds like there's quite a need...
>


No, you are deleberately mis0understanding again.

Cycling is not dangerous.

Walking, although somewhat more risky, is considered by people of sound
judgement safe enough to not require helmets.

It follows, therefore, that the less-risky activity (cycling) does not
require them either. That's common sense, after all.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Sometimes an outburst (like "kiss my ass") is more /polite/ (in that
> >> it's honest and direct) than arrogantly calling people stupid,
> >> saying they can't read or think critically, that their teachers
> >> didn't do a good job with them, that it's all over their head, etc.
> >> etc. etc.
> >>
> >> The latter are more hurtful and mean-spirited, IMO, than short
> >> expressions of anger.
> >>
> >
> > The problem is, that commets of the type...
> >
> > "pompous gasbag"
> >
> > "asshole"
> >
> > "jackass"
> >
> > and things like starting a thread accusing another poster of deviant
> > sexual practices...
>
> STOP IMPLYING THAT I DID THAT. YOU'RE PATHETIC FOR REPEATEDLY DOING SO.
>
>
> > Now, you've _already_ admitted that your calling people "asshole",
> > "jackass', "gasbag" and the starting of the deviant sexual practice
> > thread ARE abusive. Why are you still defending your actions of this
> > nature?
>
> Please name the thread that *I* started accusing another poster of deviant
> sexual practices. I have no clue what you're talking about.
>

So, again - would you please answer the question:

"Why are you still defending your actions of this nature?"

 

[jtaylor]

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

> >
> >
> > The problem is not that anyone is stopping them from using helmets,
> > but that pro-helmet zealots are stopping the rest of us from not
> > using them.
>
> I don't know any people like that, but I'll take your word for it. You
need
> to fight them!
>
> > Again: do you know of any legislation BANNING helmets?
>
> I only know people on here telling ME to stop wearing helmets in San
Diego,
> CA, USA because it's tacit support of MHLs in the freaking UK.
Balderdash.
>

No, you are deliberately misunderstanding again.

What you've been told is that by wearing a helmet, you are supporting MHL's.

If that is your wish, you are allowed to do so.

No one is telling you you must not wear a helmet - only that by doing so,
you endanger the rest of us.

 

[jtaylor]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> You say that it is better to hurl epithets than criticize
> a party's failure to comprehend what is said.
>


Well he would say that, woudn't he - he's the one failing to comprehend.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> jtaylor wrote:
>
> >>> Now, you've _already_ admitted that your calling people "asshole",
> >>> "jackass', "gasbag" and the starting of the deviant sexual practice
> >>> thread ARE abusive. Why are you still defending your actions of
> >>> this nature?
>
> >> Please name the thread that *I* started accusing another poster of
> >> deviant sexual practices. I have no clue what you're talking about.
>
>
> > So, again - would you please answer the question:
> >
> > "Why are you still defending your actions of this nature?"
>
> Are you going to keep libeling me? Name the thread I supposedly started
> about "deviant sexual behavior" -- NOW -- or apologize. If you don't,
> you're worse than worthless scum. (If I /did/ do that and have just
> forgotten it, then I'll own up to it -- assuming you're not
> mischaracterizing it, of course.)
>

I have not said that you started the thread.

Google if you like.

What I have asked is if you agreed that the insults and so on that you and
Ozark hurl about with abandon were abusive.

You have so agreed.

Why do you still defend your use of abuse?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> >>
> >>> Again: do you know of any legislation BANNING helmets?
> >>
> >> I only know people on here telling ME to stop wearing helmets in San
> >> Diego, CA, USA because it's tacit support of MHLs in the freaking UK.
> > Balderdash.
> >>
> >
> > No, you are deliberately misunderstanding again.
> >
> > What you've been told is that by wearing a helmet, you are supporting
> > MHL's.
>
> And that's incorrect. (VERY totrtured logic to arrive there.)
>

The statements by legislators have been clearly discussed before. The logic
is not tortured at all - it is actually there in print.

>
> > If that is your wish, you are allowed to do so.
>
> Not according to some posters early on in these exchanges.

Cite please?

>
> > No one is telling you you must not wear a helmet - only that by doing
> > so, you endanger the rest of us.
>
> "Endanger" the rest of you, eh? Well then you better wear your lids!
>


It is exactly the wearing of "lids" that we wish to avoid - they are a
positive danger to cyclists, and your support of both them and MHL's
endangers us.

 

[jtaylor]

"Burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> >
> > Wassamatter? You not *man* enough to stand up to her? (Says
> > Dammerell, who has no wife [snicker], Press, who has a wife, but
> > obviously has other control issues, and Krygowski, who has a wife, but
> > spends much more time on his computer, intellectually jerking off over
> > bike helmets.)
> >
> > Funny, I'm in the same boat. Well, not exactly - most of my riding is
> > off-road. But I wear a lid on-road because it just doesn't matter to
> > me that much.
>
> So why post? and why post your scatalogical gratuituous insults too?
> >

It is the most common debating tactic of the pro-helmet crowd.

They don't have the facts to back up their position, so they have to insult
the people who really know what the facts are.

 

[jtaylor]

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

> "Now, you've _already_ admitted that your calling people "asshole",
> "jackass', "gasbag" and the starting of the deviant sexual practice thread
> ARE abusive." ?
>
> Are you going to say that /doesn't/ imply I started such a thread? Your
> "listing" one is even more libelous.
>
> You're just a lying, hypocritical scumbag. Only your fellow AHZs could
> support such slimy behavior.
>


Yes, it does not say what you claim at all.

You say that your use of insult etcetera is due to the posts of others who
say you cannot read and comprehend correctly.

Here we have an example of exactly that (failure to read and comprehend) and
you again start with the abuse. Why do you defend this use of abuse?

 

[jtaylor]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:16:02 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:38:05 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >>>> Sorni wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> So why aren't you out there campaigning for PSAs (Public Service
> >>>>> Announcements) for Walking Safety?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like there's quite a need...
> >>>
> >>>> No more than there is for cycling, which despite the accident rate
> >>>> being positive certainly doesn't represent carnage. Which is why
> >>>> there's no particular need for protective headgear for either.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you've snipped it now, but you made it sound like walking was
> >>> extremely treacherous!
> >>
> >> No, he was saying that neiher walking nor cycling are especially
> >> dangerous, though relative to cycling walking is a little more
> >> dangerous. Please do take more care in reading and logic.
> >
> >He wrote: "Walking is so easy people don't pay any attention, much
unlike
> >cycling at speed. Walking also has potentially many more right of way
> >conflicts with traffic. And these factors mean that per unit distance
more
> >people
> >get seriously injured walking than cycling."
> >
> >Sounds kinda scary to me.
>
> You have a serious problem in reading comprehension. He's making a
> comparison with no statement about absolute levels of danger.
> >
> >> It seems that you really do think cycling is very dangerous if a
> >> simple statement such as that walking is comparably dangerous or
> >> slightly more dangerous leads you to think the speakers means
> >> extremely dangerous in an absolute sense.
> >
> >Nope, not even close.
>
> You don't know how to read. And you seem to revel in that.
>

He's doing so deliberately.

It means that he can (wrongly) claim that we are being "mean and spiteful"
to him, and he gets to trot out his panoply of insult and character attacks.

 

[jtaylor]

"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Of course, if anyone deserves MHLs, it's the supercilious Brits posting
> in this thread. I'm just glad to do my part.
>

Interesting that an American (I presume) wishes to inflict on another
country the helmet compulsuion under which they themselves already suffer.

A case of "If my nanny state makes me dress funny, yours should too".

 

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> >
> >
> > Of course, if anyone deserves MHLs, it's the supercilious Brits posting
> > in this thread. I'm just glad to do my part.
> >
>
>
> My thoughts, exactly!
>

Two of the three main pro-helmet posters in this thread support MHL's.

Is anyone surprised?

 

[jtaylor]

"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> > OTOH, the best data shows that helmets do
> > _not_ actually work.
>
> Actually, they do. They may not protect against brain injury, but they
> do protect against other types of injury.
>
>

This is not what the best data shows.

What data are you using to support your contention?

Thompson, Riviera, & Thompson? Their study showed a significant reduction
of leg injuries from helmet use...

 

[jtaylor]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Jun 2006 16:31:30 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>

>
> >Of course, if anyone deserves MHLs, it's the supercilious Brits posting
> >in this thread. I'm just glad to do my part.
>
> Have you not noticed that this is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling? We are
> allowed to post in our own newsgroup, you know.
>
> But obviously that's another of those irregular verbs: I am
> well-informed, you are opinionated, he is supercilious.
>

Pro-helmet zealots only use two conjugations:

"I am right (nevermind the data); you are an asshole."

(This, of course has variations - for "asshole" we also find "pompous
gasbag", "jackass", "smarmy", "sexual deviant", etcetera.)

 

[jtaylor]

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


> > With little threat of an off-road MHL, the downside of being possibly
> > mistaken about that is lower too.
>
> Only seems to be an issue to UKers. Whatever.
>
>

That's interesting -

Sorni, please tell us when this off-road MHL will be introduced in the US.
I presume you will be in favour of it?

 

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Betcha Frank's a bit more reticent face-to-face......
>

>
> I doubt I'd have any trouble discussing things with a bike mechanic
> from the Ozarks.
>

Don't get too physically close Frank, he might start asking you to squeal
like a pig...

 

[jtaylor]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Did ya get wailed on a lot in grade school, Frank? I can't imagine
> > why..... ;-)
>
> I think an implicit threat of assault is very uncivilised behaviour. Why
do
> you feel you need to sink to that level?
>
>

This is not sinking, Clive.

It's rising.

Check out these threads...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....5a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8?hl=en#d4283d388ca90bb8

(the Carl Fogel "blackmail" thread), and

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/b6d951373d37c12/ea279111a1b8bfad?lnk=st&q=(Frank+OR+sex)+author%3AOzark&rnum=2&hl=en#ea279111a1b8bfad

(the Frank Krygowski "sex doll" thread - see post # 1627).

 

[jtaylor]

"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> > >
> > > Good to know that Frank's an arrogant gasbag IRL, too, however.
(Invective!
> > > Invective! Add it to the list! Add it to the list!)
> >
> > So, Paul Murphy: Do you find as many posts where I use that sort of
> > language toward this "Sorni" character?
> >
> > Surely you can't pretend both sides are participating in that abuse to
> > the same degree. It's not even close.
>
> Because, as we all know, namecalling is the only form of abuse.

Well, no - there's the starting of threads accusing posters of sexually
deviant practices; see

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/b6d951373d37c12/ea279111a1b8bfad?lnk=st&q=(Frank+OR+sex)+author%3AOzark&rnum=2&hl=en#ea279111a1b8bfad

(scroll to post 1627).

Makes things like Frank's "you are failing to comprehend" seem a little
tame, dontcha think?