Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Of course they are more hurtful: those are the ones aimed
> > at you. The epithets you hurl apparently do not bother
> > you.
>

> Neither side is objective about all this, of course, so it's one more in a
> long line of essentially useless arguments for which I plead guilty. I
have
> this thing about bullies, unfairness, double standards, hypocrisy, etc.
and
> usually can't help myself from speaking up.


"speaking up" would be using terms like:

"asshole"

"pompous gasbag"

"jackass"

and so on?

(Just checking; you've admitted that your use of these tems is abusive, and
I'm just wondering if you think it is allright to be abusive in this way
when you are "speaking up" about, well, "abuse".)

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "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?
>
> Your reading comprehension is abysmal. (Try reading the exchange --
> including the parts you deleted -- again.)
>

Let's see.

A poster in the UK says there is little threat of an off-road MHL.

Sorni says that is only a concern to UK posters, not to him.

Either there IS a threat of a US off-road MHL, or he (Sorni) does not think
an off-road MHL in the US would be threatening to him (despite his claim to
be "pro-choice - at least pro-choice for the folks who live where he does;
the other 99.99% of the world can go hang).

Who's having reading problems (again)?

 

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sorni wrote:
> > Alan Braggins wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > To be fair, I think many people do quite reasonably wear helmets
> > > because they plan to have accidents that aren't typical of the
> > > overall statistics. Specifically, in the form "I plan to be off-road
> > > where life-threatening impacts with motor vehicles are rare but
> > > uncomfortable low speed bumps
> > > on terrain are more common".
> >
> > And of course, falls like that never happen on road bikes -- navigating
> > around stopped cars, say, with an unexpected pothole, groove in the
pavement
> > or uneven surface, causing a sudden need to stop and inability to clip
out.
> > (And no one I know who mountain bikes "plans" to have accidents, either,
by
> > the way. Kinda why they call 'em "accidents".)
>
> Nobody claims that falls on bikes "never" happen. Falls happen from
> riding bikes,from playing basketball, from playing tennis, from
> descending stairs, from just walking along, etc.
>
> A rational person can understand the idea of _counting_ such accidents
> to determine how often they happen. And as we've indicated, despite
> your vivid imagination, bike falls and serious bike head injuries are
> NOT very common.
>
> We've given data that showed that there are more serious injuries per
> hour, or per mile, of walking than bicycling. This makes no
> impression, apparently. You still fixate on what _could_ happen on a
> bike while ignoring what _does_ happen while walking.
>
> BTW, in the USA, there are significantly more ER visits per year caused
> by basketball (690,000) than by bicycling (560,000), despite many fewer
> hours of exposure to basketball. Yet you fixate on what _could_ happen
> while bicycling.
>
> As I've posted many times, Moritz's poll of avid cyclists showed they
> ride well over 30,000 miles between crashes that either need even minor
> medical treatment or damage $50 worth of equipment - like, bending a
> derailleur. That's not the sorts of numbers you get for a dangerous
> activity.
>
> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>

The only people it does do good are the pro-helmet zealots - those who make
money from selling them, and those who wish others to do as they think is
correct. Those of the second pursuasion are also those who do not wish
their opinions to be swayed by data - indeed they happily ignore it.

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> You don't sound "smarter than me", Frank, sorry. There are folk here I
> respect, but you are not among them. Intelligent people tend to be
> secure in themselves. Unlike you, they don't have a need to go around
> bragging on themselves. You are, indeed, a self-important, puffed up,
> pompous gas bag. Oh, I forgot to add "small time" and "pissant", but
> you already knew that.
>

Intelligent people use facts to decide things, not insults and threats.

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> There's a "realistic" chance of suffering the kind of injury that a helmet
> is designed to prevent on almost any /serious/ bike ride.

Leaving aside the question of just why and how Sorni needs to weasle his
statement with the qualifier "serious", we sould remind people about just
how dangerous cycling is not.

One death per roughly 450 years of cycling non-stop, 24 hours a day, 365
days a year.

Now, Sori says also that to cost-benefit ratio of helmets is in favour of
them being worn. (This despite being told that the numbers have already
been crunched, and it is not so.) He's also told us that helemts cost as
much as $189, indedd that friends of his brag about buying them for that
much.

Just how frightened of cyciling is he?

 

[jtaylor]

"Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> > NEVER, EVER seen one. I've been in a lot of shops, visited a lot of
> > websites, read a lot of magazine articles, been on a lot of cycling
> > mailing lists, and I've never even /heard/ of any pro-helmet pamphlets
> > much less been given one or "told" to read one.
>
> Same here so its not a USA/UK thing.
>

Didn't Sheldon post that it is the LAW that his shop post a sign saying
(lying) about the protective value of helmets and their required wearing?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> 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).
>
> Ah, you've finally posted it, I see. BUT YOU SAID HE (SOMEONE) *STARTED A
> THREAD* ABOUT DEVIANT SEXUAL PRACTICES! In fact, you implied over and
over
> that *I* did so.
>

Not true.

I merely asked you if you though that that, along with your use of insult,
was abusive. They were, of course, the tactics that the pro-helmet-zealots
(branding for simplicity; you are included) preferred when responding to
posts with facts that showed how and why you were wrong.

Eventually you agreed that they were abusive; yet you continue to use insult
with abandon.

Ae you trying to hide that you did so agree?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "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.
>
> Ladies and germs, Jay Flailor.
>
>

Ladies and gentlemen (I include the latter out of consideration for both
those who are not female, and for Sori), the man with no facts but a surfeit
of insult.

Now, if he _has_ facts, let him show them - which data show that helmets
have a net health benefit, and are these studies produced by Thompson,
Riviera and Thompson, or collected by Sorni in a usenet anecdotal "poll"
slanted to reject cases that disagree with his prejudice?

 

[jtaylor]

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


> > 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.)
>
> Ladies and Germs, I give you... "Jay Flailor", post humper extraordinaire.
> And LIAR
>

Are you denying that pro-helmet zealots have done exactly that in these
threads?

 

[jtaylor]

"Mark McNeill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Response to jtaylor:
>
>
> > Didn't Sheldon post that it is the LAW that his shop post a sign saying
> > (lying) about the protective value of helmets and their required
wearing?
>
>
> Sheldon didn't [as far as I know], Carl Fogel did; but yes, it is
> apparently law in Massachusetts:
>
>
> http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/mass.htm#C85S11D
>
> Bicycle helmets; display of sign recommending use
>
> Every person engaged in the retail business of selling or renting
> bicycles shall display in an area conspicuous to customers of such
> business a sign containing the following statement: "It is highly
> recommended that a bicycle helmet be worn while riding a bicycle.".
>
>

Ok.

Sheldon's shop is also in Mass. The pro-helmet zealots have a sign is his
as well, I expect.

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Braggins wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >> You will be a happier man if you do not focus on
> >> pro vs. anti.
>
> > It was Sorni who pointed out that there was a tendency for the
> > argument
> > to divide on political lines, with liberals (at least by American
> > standards)
> > more interested in informed choice and conservatives giving more
> > weight to
> > gut feel (and, in general, forced enforcement of their views on
> > others,
> > though there are anti-MHL helmet enthusiasts).
> > He didn't, of course, word it quite like that.
>
> No, you /misstated/ what I said and meant, as usual.
>
> What I noticed was that all the overtly "anti helmet" people /seem/ to be
> left-leaning; there's not a single conservative among them (the ones who
> speak up, at least).
>

a) How can you tell what political stripe people have from their views on
the foolishness of helmet wearing and wearers?

b) What does it matter what political stripe people have to the discussion?

 

[jtaylor]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> Let's not ever forget the Comet, eh?
> > Ding!
>
> > Late to the party, just like I said.
>
> So the world's first commercial jet airliner was "late to the party"?
>
> > And I guess Junkers just stole the design.
>
> I think you mean Heinkel (The He 178 was the first flying jet aircraft,
> nothing to do with Junkers). The jet was independently created in
> Germany, but development started after Whittle's in the UK. You'll find
> all this in the Wikipedia, but don't let finding things out get in the
> way of posting. It certainly hasn't stopped you before!
>


Damm.

Those pesky facts getting in the way of the pro-helmet zealots' opinions
again.

 

[jtaylor]

"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Ed and Sandy could be the CEOs of Bell and Giro for
> > all we and the internet knows about them under those names.
> >
> Surely we should judge people's arguments only on their merit?
>

Surely.

And neither should we use terms such as:

"arrogant prigs"
"post-humper"
"PITA"
"Horse friggin' ****"
"pompous gasbag"
"Asshole"
"stick-in-the-bum"
" hypocrite"
"weaseling "
"self-important"
"puffed up"
"small time"
"pissant "
"conceited, disingenous jerk "

etcetera, hoping to pursuade others that such use gives arguments merit.

You are unlikely to find helmet skeptics hampered by such a restriction...

 

[jtaylor]

"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?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> I came to believe in helmets AFTER experiencing and
> seeing their benefits, not before. HTH.

So, no facts at all in the decision then - just anecdote?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> At the very least you're guilty of intentional dishonest
> implication -- unless you're just inept with the use of language.

All that is required is the ability to read and comprehend properly. If you
cannot do that, don't complain about the writer.

Now, how about answering the question that you snipped:

>
> > I merely asked you if you though that that, along with your use of
> > insult, was abusive. They were, of course, the tactics that the
> > pro-helmet-zealots (branding for simplicity; you are included)
> > preferred when responding to posts with facts that showed how and why
> > you were wrong.
>

[ snip restored ]

> > Eventually you agreed that they were abusive; yet you continue to use
insult with abandon.
> >
> > Ae you trying to hide that you did so agree?

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <[email protected]>,
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>> I think almost everyone else simply ignored it.
> >>
> >>> I did. Could not make out what was said, and chose not to
> >>> make an effort to project any meaning in the hope that one
> >>> would emerge.
> >>
> >> Um... You DO get the irony of this post, right? RIGHT??? LOL
> >>
> >> (Heck, I'll spoil it: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT "IT" IS!
> >
> > Sorni, I wonder what sort of primitive newsreader you're using?
>
> It works wonderfully, Frank. Thanks for your concern.
>
>

Then why do you keep complaining about being unable to follow threads
correctly?

Perhaps you don't know how to work it. Frank has offered to help you with
that - just post the type of newsreader and hey - with help, maybe your
reading and comprehension will get better as well.

 

[jtaylor]

"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > "Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > says...
> > > > Ed and Sandy could be the CEOs of Bell and Giro for
> > > > all we and the internet knows about them under those names.
> > > >
> > > Surely we should judge people's arguments only on their merit?
> > >
> >
> > Surely.
> >
> > And neither should we use terms such as:
> >
> > "arrogant prigs"
> > "post-humper"
> > "PITA"
> > "Horse friggin' ****"
> > "pompous gasbag"
> > "Asshole"
> > "stick-in-the-bum"
> > " hypocrite"
> > "weaseling "
> > "self-important"
> > "puffed up"
> > "small time"
> > "pissant "
> > "conceited, disingenous jerk "
> >
> > etcetera, hoping to pursuade others that such use gives arguments merit.
> >
> > You are unlikely to find helmet skeptics hampered by such a
restriction...
> >
> Few have stooped to such language. But many in both pro- and anti-
> helmet camps would find themselves greatly restricted by a ban on straw
> men and snide comments.

I believe you'll find that the "Few" above are also the people who do not
agree about the level of risk you describe below.

>
> What I find most interesting about this topic is the number of people
> who are willing to debate endlessly about the dangers of cycling
> with/without a helmet when in either configuration, cycling is a very
> safe activity.
>
> Rick

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> >>> I merely asked you if you though that that, along with your use of
> >>> insult, was abusive. They were, of course, the tactics that the
> >>> pro-helmet-zealots (branding for simplicity; you are included)
> >>> preferred when responding to posts with facts that showed how and
> >>> why you were wrong.
> >>
> >
> > [ snip restored ]
> >
> >>> Eventually you agreed that they were abusive; yet you continue to
> >>> use insult with abandon.
> >>>
> >>> Ae you trying to hide that you did so agree?
>
> You're clueless. You snip the answer I DID give and then repaste
> meaningless drivel. Moron.
>
>

That was not an answer to the question I asked.

So, you still resort to insult rather than answer the question?