Re: published helmet research - not troll



"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
>> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
>> provide some proof to back your assertion.

>
> The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> thing - it agrees with what I was stating.


You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%. That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you
were looking at but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance
on your part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

> Obviously you've added no
> new information to the discussion and think that repeating yourself
> with lots of verbage will somehow convince people. And that is all
> you are doing.


Since it isn't necessary for Guy or anyone else to add any information
contrary to your assertions since you were kind enough to cite not one but
TWO sources that both contradicted your own claims.

Guy has challenged you to supply ANY information that supports your claims
or to admit you were wrong. Frank was kind enough to give you the benefit of
a doubt and suggested that perhaps YOU had some sort of helmet that indeed
had less drag than a full head of long hair. Instead of replying you evaded
his questions with a paranoia that has become your trademark.

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
> >> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
> >> provide some proof to back your assertion.

> >
> > The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> > thing - it agrees with what I was stating.

>
> You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
> on a bicyclist by 5%.


The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice. Then someone asked for
some data, I did a google search, and found a case that gave a
reduction of about 5% for one particular helmet. It was near the top
of the list google produced. I merely gave a URL and a short statement
of what you'll find in it, since you had to scroll down a few screenfuls
to find anything.

And you are daft enough as to complain about that?

> That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you were looking at
> but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance on your
> part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
> against it."


Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

> Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
> lock you up for your own protection.


That from someone who actually was locked up for the protection of
others as you were? Should I post the URL again - after all *you*
brought this behavior up on some of these newsgroups.

I'll ignore your other posts from today. You are acting as badly
as that Guy character, if not worse. Given your history, as far
as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> >All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
>> >assertions.


>> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
>> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
>> provide some proof to back your assertion.


>The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
>thing - it agrees with what I was stating.


Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario. Your assertion that modern helmets
are somehow better than this, combined with your assertion-by-stealth
that long hair is representative of cyclists in general, forms the
claim to which several of us object. One of the studies you cite
starts form the base premise that helmets increase drag, but you seem
to want us to believe otherwise; it is not surprising that your word
as a zealot is less persuasive than all that evidence which
contradicts you.

But you do have three possible ways forward from here:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!


Misinterpreted by you as applying to a helmet, whereas it actually
applies to a head fairing with no protective capability. I seem to
recall that it took some time to get that point over to you, if indeed
we did since you still persist in producing that figure out of a hat
occasionally.

>I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
>small for most cyclists to notice in practice.


Indeed you did. And your own figures show the exact opposite opposite
- an increase which is significant for the short-haired cyclist and
less so for the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
hair. You were therefore challenged to back your assertion with data.
In trying to do so you produced several citations to the original Kyle
study which proved you wrong, and one new study whose starting premise
is that helmets increase drag - presumably based on Kyle.

That leaves you with three possible options:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

So far you have preferred your usual mix of evasion, denial,
ad-hominem and reiteration of the incorrect assertion. But we live in
hope.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
> seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
> don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
> worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
> worth rather than talk about the real issues.)


In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With
China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00,
Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China.
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans
workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with
China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush
administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was
manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade
Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote
#237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq.
KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given
diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to
disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported
him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat
Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted "To Threaten" Use Of Force In Iraq. "I voted to
threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions
of the United Nations." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of
Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think you
belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this
war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard
Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the
war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the
anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe
the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC's
"Hardball," 1/6/04)

Yeah, Mr. Consistancy your name is Kerry.

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously
by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313:
Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. "Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with
improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do
with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on
September 11th." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester,
NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not
of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That
starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our
people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a District Attorney and
I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on
American's basic rights." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State
University, 12/1/03)

More of that well known Kerry Konsistancy.

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same
Constituent. "Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most
expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much
like he did this time around. Consider this 'Notebook' item from TNR's March
25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline 'Same Senator, Same Constituent':
'Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use
of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January
11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic
sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the
president the immediate authority to go to war.' --letter from Senator John
Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22
[1991] 'Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for
the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported
President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has
established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.' --Senator
Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]" (Noam Scheiber, "Noam Scheiber's
Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

More of that well known Kerry Konsistancy.

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter "Urging" MA Legislature To Reject
Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. "We rarely comment on issues
that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are
occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all
residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express
our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that
would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of
same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for
Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have
such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. . We are
therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and
avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be
treated in such a manner." (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The
Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won't Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. "Asked if
he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian
marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. 'I'll have to see what
language there is,' he said." (Susan Milligan, "Kerry Says GOP May Target
Him On 'Wedge Issue,'" The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Is this the REAL JOHN KERRY or the Xerox copy?

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began.
"Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . said he will cease his complaints
once the shooting starts. 'It's what you owe the troops,' said a statement
from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. 'I remember being one of
those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't
speak a word without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the
fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert.'" (Glen
Johnson, "Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric," The Boston Globe,
3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His
Pledge. "'What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and
Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,' Kerry said in a
speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to
cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a
barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad." (Glen
Johnson, "Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own 'Regime Change,'" The Boston Globe,
4/3/03)

And Speaking of Xreox Copies:

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions

Flip-Flopped On NAFTA

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

Flip-Flopped On PACs

Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC

Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense

Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition

Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror

Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation

And just in this campaign he has stated that we should seek international
support for controlling terrorist nations then stated that we should have
dealt unilaterally with North Korea instead of historic involvement that was
a giant feather in the cap of George Bush.

The Democrats complained loudly that we STILL had US military in South Korea
only to turn around an scream that reducing troops there was the wrong thing
to do.

The Kerry campaign claimed that Bush only went into Iraq for cheap oil and
they are now complaining that Bush went into Iraq to make oil more
expensive.

You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:


Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.
>
> >> >All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
> >> >assertions.

>
> >> Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to
> >> your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to
> >> provide some proof to back your assertion.

>
> >The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such
> >thing - it agrees with what I was stating.

>
> Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
> that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
> worst-case unhelmeted scenario.


It doesn't say that. It shows an airodyanamic advantage of 5.2 percent
for an ANSI approved Bell Stratos. See

<http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm>.

The Bell V1 Pro is not an aerodynamic design (it is completely
symmetric.) It is only *slightly* worse than riding with long hair.

It may surprise you, but most of us don't choose our hair style to
cut air drag when riding a bicycle.


> Your assertion that modern helmest are somehow better than this,
> combined with your assertion-by-stealth that long hair is
> representative of cyclists in general, forms the claim to which
> several of us object.


We have two data points - a nonaerodyamic design that is just slightly
worse than a bare head and an aerodyamically designed one that is
significantly better. You can therefore trade off cooling and other
desirable features for drag and still come out ahead.


> One of the studies you cite starts form the base premise that
> helmets increase drag, but you seem to want us to believe otherwise;
> it is not surprising that your word as a zealot is less persuasive
> than all that evidence which contradicts you.


Sigh. The other URL I provided showed helmets decreasing drag. and the
only zealost are you and that Kunich character - Kunich's been on an
anti-helmet rant for over 10 years.

> 3. shut up.


How mature of you (and you repeat it incessantly, like the little boy
your are.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
> > seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
> > don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
> > worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
> > worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

>
> In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With
> China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00,
> Kerry Voted Yea)
>
> Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China.
> "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans
> workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with
> China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush
> administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was
> manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade
> Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)


In case you don't know, both are consistent positions. You can be in favor
of normal trade relations with China - treating China the same as other
countries - and still want to make sure that our government looks after
the interests of American workers, not the Bush ruling class.
>
> Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.


Yep, it's consistent. I'll ignore the rest of your propaganda - it is
an obvious cut and paste job from the usual right-wing lunatic fringe.
>
> You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?


Looks like Kunich is a real piece of work, doesn't it. He can't even
spell his favorite word.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
>other posts back in the time-out.


Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having been proven wrong by your own data, you have the following
three possible choices:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
> >other posts back in the time-out.

>
> Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
> evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
> listening"


Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.
>
> [ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
> times by multiple posters ]
>
> So, having


[ snip repetition of Guy's continued cut and paste from his previous
posts ].

> 3. shut up.


Once again, Guy is whining like a little boy. What an infant. To
Guy a hint, you will not get anywhere by acting like a little boy.
I think I made the point clearly enough, regardless of your attempts
to misrepresent the data (and that is what you are doing.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
>over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
>some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
>will change that.


So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, every piece of data you produced proved you wrong. At this
point there are three options open to you:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

Instead you choose ad-hominem, pretending that I am the one with
something to prove (when you are the one making claims of benefit) and
of course the good old Zaumen standby of evasion.

I expected nothing else.

This subthread now lives in the bitbucket, since it is absolutely
clear to all concerned that the evidence is against you but you would
rather try to bore us to death than either admit it or find new data
which does not contradict you.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
> >will change that.

>
> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.


And I *did* back it up with data. You simply pretended that a limiting
case - a 1980s non-aerodynamic design was the best you could do, even
though we had several data points that did far better, and the non-
aerodynamic design was only slightly worse than riding with "long
hair" instead of going for a sci-fi cyborg look.


And you are *still* posting you childish baby talk. Ask your mommy,
Guy. She has obviously missed something while bringing you up and
you should go back to her for a refresher course.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
>> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
>> assertion,


>And I *did* back it up with data.


Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, but my money is
on 4. Evasion, 5. Repeating the same discredited assertion in the hope
that someone who hasn't read the data will believe it, or 6.
ad-hominem attack.

Thanks for all the data proving you wrong, that saved me a lot of
time. This subthread is now yours alone to enjoy in your inimitable
style (or rather unimitated, nobody else wanting to make quite such an
exhibition of themselves); no doubt you will claim that as a victory
because once you've driven off everybody who has any knowledge or
insight, in your usual way, you can claim that 100% of the remaining
participants agree with you. The fact that you /are/ 100% of the
remaining participants will no doubt not spoil your pleasure.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> >> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> >> assertion,

>
> >And I *did* back it up with data.

>
> Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
> circumstances you have exactly three possible options:


That is simply a lie on your part, and you are *still* being a child
with you infantile name calling (and pointing that out is *not*
an ad hominem attack - it is a simply a factual description of
your conduct.) The data clearly showed a non-aerodyamic helmet
that was slightly worse that riding with long hair, an ANSI certified
aerodynamic helmet that was better than riding with short hair, but
a bit worse than being bald headed, and a non-ANSI certified helmet
that reduced air drag over riding with a completely bald head. Quite
obviously, there are many design points in the middle - ANSI certified,
and that give you an air drag reduction for normal cyclists - ones
who don't pick their hair styles to save a few seconds on a bike
ride.


<cut and paste job snipped>
>
> I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, <snip>


You've said you are "outta here" (or words to that effect) before,
and it has *never* been true.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>>
>> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
>> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
>> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
>> >will change that.

>>
>> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
>> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
>> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.

>
> And I *did* back it up with data.


When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
> >>
> >> >Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
> >> >over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
> >> >some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
> >> >will change that.
> >>
> >> So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
> >> clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
> >> assertion, <snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job>.

> >
> > And I *did* back it up with data.

>
> When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
> considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
> understand that.


I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag. If
you have one limiting case, an older non-aerodynamic design with only
slightly worse drag than a bare head (for a cyclist with a full head
of hair) and other designs that do better than a cyclist with short
hair, then it is pretty obvious that there are lots of points in
between, and that you don't have to do very much better from the
symmetric helmet designs from the 1980s to see a net benefit.

Is that *really* so hard for you to understand or are you just lying
as usual? After all, your track record in the honesty department
should be an embarassment, even for you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.


Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

>
> Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
> coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
> they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.
>
> And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.


Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
your posts containing your usual lies.

Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
help. I'd suggest you get it.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

>>
>> Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
>> coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and
>> that
>> they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.
>>
>> And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

>
> Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
> to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
> vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
> statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
> your posts containing your usual lies.
>
> Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
> your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
> help. I'd suggest you get it.


It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >

> > Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
> > to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
> > vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
> > statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
> > your posts containing your usual lies.
> >
> > Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
> > your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
> > help. I'd suggest you get it.

>
> It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
> from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
> think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.


Is that what you told your former(?) girlfriend when you "back-handed"
her and landed in the slammer? I'm really not impressed with you,
Tommy, nor anyone else with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old
boy. My guess is you've never been in even a remotely dicy situation.
If you had, you wouldn't need to resort to childish macho posturing.
It is really pathetic.

Oh, and if you don't like being called a liar, then you should refrain
from lying. Telling an obvious lie, and you obviously couldn't back
up your lie about what I had said on this topic by posting a URL, and
then pouting when called on it just makes you look like a child.

Oh, and if you do drop by, don't be surprised if you end up in the
slammer for a second time, and your post would be used as evidence
against you. Not very smart of you, one would think.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:

>
> I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.


True. You claimed _your_ helmet reduces air drag.

And, when asked, you refused to even tell what model _your_ helmet is.

And when it was pointed out that current helmets do not reduce air drag,
you posted data about an ancient, impractical helmet which is no longer
sold - data which, despite your raving, indicated that you were wrong
about ordinary helmets. Thus, you were almost certainly wrong about
_your_ helmet, whatever it is.

To the best of my knowledge, _no_ person reading this thread has agreed
with you. Everyone seems to think you're wrong.

Sometimes, Bill, when _everyone_ thinks you're wrong, it's because
you're actually wrong!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
507
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
436
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
346
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
304
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J