Re: published helmet research - not troll



"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

From last string of messages from Kunich:

> Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive. If you
want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:

<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
credible on this subject.

Next message:

> Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

More lies from Kunich.

> That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super dramatic
> drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention from
> you either.

He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
target.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094$N%4.81
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.
 
"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]...
>
> > >
> > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
> > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)
> >
> > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
> > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
>
> Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> > From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
> >
> > Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> > goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.
>
> So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
> what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
concerned, you have no credibility.

> > If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> > URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
> >
> <http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.
>
> Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
> turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
> arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles

Your post may have been directed to a "fake cop" but what you said
about yourself was damning enough. I can see why you would want to
obfuscate though after you wrote, "I'll tell you what I think of this
legal system -- I back-handed my girlfriend 30 years ago. I was jailed
and had to pay a couple of thousand dollars bail to get out of jail."
It's right there in the URL I gave in an article that Google claims
you wrote (and I saw the original as well.)

Face it Kunich, you are simply abusive, apparently as abusive in real
life as you've been on usenet. And I even tried to be nice to you by
not quoting from the article directly until you tried to pretend it
was about something else altogether.

<Rest of Kunich's drivel snipped.>

Bill

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

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

> > > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
> Frank
> > > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
> >
> > Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.
>
> Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
> have to work on the English language.

Is this your usenet approach to "back handing?" Randy in fact has no
duty to participate in a usenet dicussion. His decision to ignore
usenet is possibly the distaste of having to deal with the likes of
you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
> > what is abusive about that.
>
> I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
> where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
> with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
> concerned, you have no credibility.

So what you're saying is that you are so in love with helmets that you
refuse to consider the possibility that any pro-helmet research could
possibly be wrong regardless of the questionable technique of adding poorly
documented data together and coming up with a preposterous finding (that
more children could have had their lives saved by helmets than were killed
in the time period.)

But please do continue the discussion Zauman, there's an entirely new
generation of posters who deserve to see you in action.
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes: From last string of
>> > messages from Kunich:
>> > > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>> >
>> > Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
>> > goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.
>>
>> So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
>> explain what is abusive about that.
>
> I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
> behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against anyone
> who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you.
> As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.

Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
> > > what is abusive about that.
> >
> > I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
> > where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
> > with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
> > concerned, you have no credibility.
>
> So what you're saying is that you are so in love with helmets that you
> refuse to consider the possibility that any pro-helmet research could
> possibly be wrong regardless of the questionable technique of adding poorly
> documented data together and coming up with a preposterous finding (that
> more children could have had their lives saved by helmets than were killed
> in the time period.)

What I'm saying is that you personally are one of the most abusive
people on usenet, particularly wen it comes to anyone disagreeing with
your pet peeves. Anyone can go back to the archives and look (or
for that matter, they can look at the URL I recently posted.)

In every post of yours it seems there isn't a single research
result showing a positive result for helmet use that you haven't
disparaged (insulting the authors' competence.) If I missed one
in your long and continual rants on the subject, then please post
a citation.

> But please do continue the discussion Zauman, there's an entirely new
> generation of posters who deserve to see you in action.

Your 12 year long grudge is noted. Should I post the URL again
where you described yourself "in action?"

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes: From last string of
> >> > messages from Kunich:
> >> > > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
> >> >
> >> > Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> >> > goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.
> >>
> >> So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
> >> explain what is abusive about that.
> >
> > I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
> > behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against anyone
> > who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you.
> > As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.
>
> Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.

Nope. I only told them off after repeated abuse that continued for
over a month (or was it several months.) Eventually, I simply got fed
up with these bozos. And they were the only ones lying, which they
did repeatedly.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes: From last string of
>> >> > messages from Kunich:
>> >> > > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>> >> >
>> >> > Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet,"
>> >> > he goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.
>> >>
>> >> So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
>> >> explain what is abusive about that.
>> >
>> > I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
>> > behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against
>> > anyone who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it
>> > suits you. As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.
>>
>> Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.
>
> Nope. I only told them off after repeated abuse that continued for
> over a month (or was it several months.) Eventually, I simply got
> fed up with these bozos. And they were the only ones lying, which
> they did repeatedly.

You seem very prone to accusing others that they are lying, Bill, as
well as insisting you are right on all topics.
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> > Nope. I only told them off after repeated abuse that continued for
> > over a month (or was it several months.) Eventually, I simply got
> > fed up with these bozos. And they were the only ones lying, which
> > they did repeatedly.
>
> You seem very prone to accusing others that they are lying, Bill, as
> well as insisting you are right on all topics.

Uh huh. Guess I'll write you off too.

BTW, the anti-helmet crew did lie repeatedly. Why don't you look at
the vitriolic reaction I got for suggesting that helmets provide some
useful protection but are not a panacea? Does that sound unreasonable
to you?

One guy in particular posted repeated lies about me about me posting
continually to newsgroups (on a different topic) and when I called him
on it repeatedly, he could not produce a single example of anything I
had posted there, and simply muttered instead about archives but never
being able to produce a URL. Their standard procedure is to
personally attack anyone who they disagree with: usenet posters,
researchers, anyone.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:33:28 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Randy's site is even set up so that
>you can't find the anti-helmet information but he puts it there in hard to
>find locations so that he can say that it's really there

In a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware of the leopard",
located in a disused lavatory in a basement where the lights have
gone. As have the stairs.

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]...
>
> What I'm saying is that you personally are one of the most abusive
> people on usenet, particularly wen it comes to anyone disagreeing with
> your pet peeves. Anyone can go back to the archives and look (or
> for that matter, they can look at the URL I recently posted.)

Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?

You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
they just shake their heads.
 
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What I'm saying is that you personally are one of the most abusive
>> people on usenet, particularly wen it comes to anyone disagreeing with
>> your pet peeves. Anyone can go back to the archives and look (or
>> for that matter, they can look at the URL I recently posted.)
>
>Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
>seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
>you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
>managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
>pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?
>
>You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
>Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
>they just shake their heads.

Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > What I'm saying is that you personally are one of the most abusive
> > people on usenet, particularly wen it comes to anyone disagreeing with
> > your pet peeves. Anyone can go back to the archives and look (or
> > for that matter, they can look at the URL I recently posted.)
>
> Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
> seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
> you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
> managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
> pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?

Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
produce a single URL.

BTW, if I thought anyone would take your lies seriously (after all,
anyone can easily check) I'd have more than enough grounds to sue your
ass for libel - you've posted this lie (with minor variations)
repeatedly and repeatedly refused to back it up with a URL (and the
Unix messages are all archived.) It is not an honest mistake on your
part.

> You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
> Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
> they just shake their heads.

Another of Kunich's lies - I've never *once* been in a bike shop in
Cupertino. It's 10 miles from where I live, we have good bike
shops here, and I use a bike for transportation, not racing, so there
is no reason for me to go to a shop in Cupertino to "hang out."

Well guys, what can you expect from a guy like Tom Kunich who,
according to his own accout, once "back handed" his girlfriend and
ended up in jail. See

<http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22back+handed%22+author:kunich&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=1>,

which quotes Kunich as saying, "I'll tell you what I think of this
legal system -- I back-handed my girlfriend 30 years ago. I was jailed
and had to pay a couple of thousand dollars bail to get out of jail."
You'll find that in the last paragraph of the post, and Kunich wrote
it. The quote is word-for-word taken off of a google archive. Just
search newsgroups for "back handed" in messages written by Kunich.

He was abusive then, and he's abusive now. Character assasination and
bald-faced lies are part of the standard operating procedure used by
these fanatics. You'll see more if the thread continues.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Chris B. <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...

> >You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
> >Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
> >they just shake their heads.
>
> Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?

Don't ask. You'll trip him up and he'll start abusing you rather than
admitting that he just posts one lie after another.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be
in
> >Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left.
Now
> >they just shake their heads.
>
> Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?

Hell, everyone wears helmets don't they? It's sort of like a part of the
uniform. That doesn't mean they do anything.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
> can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
> any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
> of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
> branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
> produce a single URL.

Well, we've seen how well you've been loved though haven't we?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&[email protected]&rnum=3
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=4
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=8
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=20
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=26

Bill, I think that we can classify you as a well-known zit on the ass of
society. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find anyone who responded to any
of your postings to whom you were not antagonistic. Tim McNamara who is
hardly a great friend of mine mentioned in the middle of one of your usual
rants that you were doing what you accused me of doing - your repsonse? "I
know damn well what I posted and you are lying."

Here's some advice, if you're around people in the real world I suggest you
moderate your attitude or learn to hold your nose with both hands while
crying.

BTW Bill, weren't you the one who was working for Sun? Perhaps I have the
wrong Bill.

> > You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be
in
> > Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left.
Now
> > they just shake their heads.
>
> Another of Kunich's lies - I've never *once* been in a bike shop in
> Cupertino. It's 10 miles from where I live, we have good bike
> shops here, and I use a bike for transportation, not racing, so there
> is no reason for me to go to a shop in Cupertino to "hang out."

Wow, well, Bill, it was perhaps 10 years ago and you weren't there to buy
anything. You were just standing outside since apparently you weren't
allowed in the shop.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
> > can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
> > any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
> > of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
> > branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
> > produce a single URL.
>
> Well, we've seen how well you've been loved though haven't we?

You talked about *unix* newsgroups, you liar. Now, where the
**** are these messages you claim exist?

What you came up with were (a) Insults from a moron who calls himself
"mad dog" (and acts like it, posting on a rec group which has a large
share of flames), (b) some idiot on a bicycle group, and (c) several
from Ric Silver, one of the worst idiots to plague ba.transportation
and some other groups in years. Ric Silver is a self-styled political
operator who goes out of the way to alienate people, and who lies
repeatedly. You picked idiots who have long standing grudges. Big
deal. Just check ba.transportation and look at Silver's posts, if
you want to see what he is like.

Kunich, I'm going to publically call you what you are - a bald-faced
lying piece of ****. You made a claim about statements on *unix*
groups. Produce them or be branded a bald-faced liar.

It is typical of you - you lie through your teeth and then try to
cover up by changing the topic.

Oh, and If I cited every message where some random person flamed you,
the list would be longer than anyone can imagine.

> Wow, well, Bill, it was perhaps 10 years ago and you weren't there to buy
> anything. You were just standing outside since apparently you weren't
> allowed in the shop.

I've never even stood outside of a Cupertino bike shop. I couldn't even
tell you where to find one in Cupertino. So, I say you are lying yet
again (and trying to cover up, of course.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is typical of you - you lie through your teeth and then try to
> cover up by changing the topic.

Bill, I asked you if you worked for Sun. Is that too hard for you?

BTW, is the reason that I couldn't locate all of those people doing a number
on you on the Sun/Unix groups because you were using a different name? Of
course I could be remembering a different Bill - some OTHER ******.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back