Re: published helmet research - not troll

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Frank Krygowski, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >> Now, how about the challenge I issued?

    >
    > >I've gone over it 30 times already


    .... and we don't need 31 times.

    >
    > Indeed, and each time the fundamental flaws in your assertion have
    > been pointed out to you, most notably the fact that all your evidence
    > actually says the opposite of what you assert. There are three
    > possible ways forward from that position:


    You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have
    a point when you in fact don't. I'll snip the rest of your post
    as well. Given your continued infantile name calling, I'll assume
    you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion of any time.

    Enjoy your time out. Your cut-and-paste jobs are the halmark of
    a troll.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     


  2. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    > > I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
    > > times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
    > > I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
    > > helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
    > > full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
    > > a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
    > > couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
    > > a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
    > > shaping to get a net reduction in drag.

    >
    > To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an ANSI
    > certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
    > Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold as
    > ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.


    Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal
    helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in
    the previous posts. The others were. The one that is not ANSI
    certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how
    much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI
    certified one.

    > Moreover, modern road helmets with their odd shapes and multiple vents have
    > considerably more drag than the Bell V1 Pro that had more drag than any bare
    > head.


    You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions.

    > Does it hurt your head to be that


    Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion?
    Is it perchance the same personal problem that landed you in the slammer
    for an evening? Face it, Kunich, you have a history of being abusive.
    It's time for you to grow up.

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

    >> >I've gone over it 30 times already

    >... and we don't need 31 times.


    To know you are wrong? No indeed.

    >You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have
    >a point when you in fact don't.


    Which might make sense if it weren't you who is trying to make a
    point. All we are doing is challenging you to provide proof. Thus
    far the proof you have provided shows the opposite of what you assert,
    hence the challenge:

    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'll snip the rest of your post as well.


    Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening".

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

    >You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions.


    In the same way that you provide no evidence to support your
    assertions. All the evidence you posted proves you wrong.

    The crucial difference here is that Tom is not making claims (of
    benefit or otherwise), while you are. You have made a claim, we have
    challenged you to substantiate it, and you have signally failed to do
    so. Although you have provided some world-class examples of evasion
    along the way.

    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
     
  5. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >> >I've gone over it 30 times already

    > >... and we don't need 31 times.

    >
    > To know you are wrong? No indeed.


    All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
    assertions. I've provided three data points - an aerodynamicly
    designed helmet that reduces drag relative to a bare head, an
    ANSI-certified aerodynamically designed helmet whose air drag is
    between that for a bald head and that for short hair, and a
    non-aerodyanmiclly designed helmet (a Bell V1 Pro) that is slightly
    worse than long hair. Your assertion seems to be either that it is
    impossible to come up with a design whose air drag falls in between
    the latter two points, providing a slight air drag reduction, or that
    helmet designers decided to develop worse designs from year to year as
    they went to more aerodynamic shapes.

    I also showed some data where the air drag for a couple of helmet
    shapes was measured, showing a net reduction.

    >
    > >I'll snip the rest of your post as well.

    >
    > Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening".


    When you act like an infant, you'll be put in a time out and ignored.
    Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your
    other post today as well.

    If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your
    history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject and cut the baby talk.
    I know it must hurt you to be treated like a child, but if you want
    to be treated like an adult, start acting like one.

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

    >> >> >I've gone over it 30 times already
    >> >... and we don't need 31 times.

    >> To know you are wrong? No indeed.


    >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. This amounts, in
    BillWorld[tm] to a "mindless assertion" on my part. But you are
    ignoring the simple and obvious fact that it is /you/ who are making
    claims of benefit, /you/ who are making what assertions are being
    made, /you/ who provided the proof you are wrong, /you/ who have
    failed to provide evidence to back your assertion.

    It's a strange place, BillWorld[tm], and no mistake.

    >Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your
    >other post today as well.


    Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening".

    >If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your
    >history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject


    I did. Per the subject, I presented the following clear and
    unambiguous challenge:

    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 tried insults, evasions and repeating your disproven
    assertion.

    Executive summary:

    Bill |<---------------- unbridgeable chasm ---------------->| Clue

    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
     
  7. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >> >> >I've gone over it 30 times already
    > >> >... and we don't need 31 times.
    > >> To know you are wrong? No indeed.

    >
    > >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. 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.

    I.e, you are a mindless troll - and *still* resorting to childish name
    calling. Why don't you start acting like an adult - it really isn't
    that hard.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > I'm just repeating myself mindlessly, and pretending to have
    > a point when I in fact don't.


    I see we agree on something for a change.
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
    > assertions.


    Yeah! Backed up ONLY with the citations that you posted.
     
  10. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
    >> To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an
    >> ANSI
    >> certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
    >> Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold
    >> as
    >> ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.

    >
    > Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal
    > helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in
    > the previous posts. The others were.


    But of course the one you were claiming to show less drag than a bald head
    was the non-ANSI helmet. Let's face it Bill, your lies show a remarkable
    lack of talent especially when you are the one that supplied the citations.
    Could you possibly be so stupid a to believe that no one would actually look
    at those citations to ascertain the truth of your statements? Apparently you
    are and feel that you need only lie about the parts that disagree with your
    assertions. That is - everything.

    > The one that is not ANSI
    > certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how
    > much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI
    > certified one.


    Yes, what you can do is qiute a bit less than an ANSI helmet and barely less
    than a bald head or even short hair IF you are willing to only ride in a
    racing crouch, on aero bars and with your head placed solidly forward never
    looking either right nor left. In fact, sort of the way you view the world
    around you - with tunnel vision and completely outside of reality.

    > Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion?


    Do you mean like your idea of a civil discussion where you make unsupported
    claims and then supply a citation that proves you completely wrong whereby
    you post for a month saying exactly the opposite of the information you
    yourself provided?

    Bill, everyone on the internet now knows that you are seriously mental. I
    suggest you find a good shrink and discuss why you cannot admit you are
    wrong even when you supply the proof yourself.
     
  11. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "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.
     
  12. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  13. 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
     
  14. 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
     
  15. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "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?
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  17. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  18. 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
     
  19. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  20. 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
     
Loading...
Loading...