Silly helmet poll on BBC..

[Geraint Jones]

Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
| On 14/08/2006 17:06, Geraint Jones said,
| > Dunno. That's consistent with only about 37 people
| > having voted "no" since this morning. Not much of
| > an audience for a high-traffic website.
| Something wrong with the maths there - when I looked at around 4:30 this
| afternoon there were something like 1100 votes cast.

Nothing wrong with the maths: what I said was consistent
with what he said. The change in percentages was in itself
unremarkable; the number of votes cast wasn't in the
article I replied to. (Er, I don't think it was.) You
don't expect me to go and find things out for myself do
you? I have a bike to ride, you know.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:26 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:
>set up a provocative strawman, and watch the notorious
>online cycling lobby in action!

Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they
have yet to mobilise their supporters to provide feedback to the
BBC. Either they have few supporters, or they can't be bothered to
take part.

I note from


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:26 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:
>set up a provocative strawman, and watch the notorious
>online cycling lobby in action!

Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they
have yet to mobilise their supporters to provide feedback to the
BBC. Either they have few supporters, or they can't be bothered to
take part.

I note from http://www.bhit.org/ that "The Trust does recognise that
other organisations do not share the same view. Some of these bodies
are quick to discredit the Trust but rather than become embroiled in
any dispute and waste limited time and valuable resources, the
charity continues to focus on the issue in hand – the protection of
young cyclists." This sounds to me like not many people have rallied
to their crusade, a word I use deliberately, so they intend to
continue sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring anything
that doesn't fit in with their religion.

Does anyone know if BSHIT are still being funded by my taxes?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[jtaylor]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:26 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:
> >set up a provocative strawman, and watch the notorious
> >online cycling lobby in action!
>
> Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they
> have yet to mobilise their supporters to provide feedback to the
> BBC. Either they have few supporters, or they can't be bothered to
> take part.

Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the substance
(such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK - which sems congruent with
his situation as MHL's have been passed in his state and he did nothing, as
far as we can tell, to prevent that happening.

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:26 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> > >I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:
> > >set up a provocative strawman, and watch the notorious
> > >online cycling lobby in action!
> >
> > Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they
> > have yet to mobilise their supporters to provide feedback to the
> > BBC. Either they have few supporters, or they can't be bothered to
> > take part.
>
> Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
> concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the substance
> (such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
> preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK

Do you mean this, sleazeball?

http://tinyurl.com/h6qsm



>- which sems congruent with
> his situation as MHL's have been passed in his state and he did nothing, as
> far as we can tell, to prevent that happening.

If a MHL comes up for a vote, does your lot recommend voter fraud to
achieve the desired result?

"Stuff that ballot box; victory uber alles." - Burt Raven

 

[jtaylor]

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

> >
> > Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
> > concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the
substance
> > (such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
> > preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK
>
> Do you mean this, sleazeball?
>

Insults are evidence that the person employing them has no other support.

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
> > > concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the
> substance
> > > (such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
> > > preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK
> >
> > Do you mean this, sleazeball?
> > http://tinyurl.com/h6qsm
>
> Insults are evidence that the person employing them has no other support.

Distorting the results of a "poll" via voter fraud is a sleazy tactic.
You condone the practice, hence the term "sleazeball" is an accurate
assessment of your character, not an insult.

HAND

 

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> jtaylor wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
> > > > concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the
> > substance
> > > > (such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
> > > > preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK
> > >
> > > Do you mean this, sleazeball?
> > > http://tinyurl.com/h6qsm
> >
> > Insults are evidence that the person employing them has no other
support.
>
> Distorting the results of a "poll" via voter fraud is a sleazy tactic.
> You condone the practice, hence the term "sleazeball" is an accurate
> assessment of your character, not an insult.
>

Please cite where, should such conduct be occuring, I am on record as being
in favour.

 

[D.M. Procida]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
et_feature.shtml
>
> If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote as
> many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.

Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident that
the results actually mean something, just so I have a better idea what
people do in fact think.

Daniele

 

[[email protected]]

D.M. Procida wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
> et_feature.shtml
> >
> > If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote as
> > many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.
>
> Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident that
> the results actually mean something, just so I have a better idea what
> people do in fact think.
>
> Daniele

You're a sensible and ethical person.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> D.M. Procida wrote:
> > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
> > et_feature.shtml
> > >
> > > If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote as
> > > many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.
> >
> > Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident that
> > the results actually mean something, just so I have a better idea what
> > people do in fact think.
> >
> > Daniele
>
> You're a sensible and ethical person.
>
>
I wonder if the same can be said of the person responsible for shifting
the vote from 5% pro-compulsion to 43%. The vote count is currently
going up at about one a second, all pro-compulsion of course.

 

[[email protected]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > D.M. Procida wrote:
> > > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
> > > et_feature.shtml
> > > >
> > > > If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote as
> > > > many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.
> > >
> > > Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident that
> > > the results actually mean something, just so I have a better idea what
> > > people do in fact think.
> > >
> > > Daniele
> >
> > You're a sensible and ethical person.
> >
> >
> I wonder if the same can be said of the person responsible for shifting
> the vote from 5% pro-compulsion to 43%. The vote count is currently
> going up at about one a second, all pro-compulsion of course.


While I don't approve of this kind of skullduggery on either side, why
are you surprised? What goes around comes around....

 

[[email protected]]

Rob Morley wrote:

> > >
> > > Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident that
> > > the results actually mean something, just so I have a better idea what
> > > people do in fact think.
> > >
> > > Daniele
> >
> > You're a sensible and ethical person.
> >
> >
> I wonder if the same can be said of the person responsible for shifting
> the vote from 5% pro-compulsion to 43%. The vote count is currently
> going up at about one a second, all pro-compulsion of course.

That probably shows that there hasn't been much ballot stuffing up
until now. 5-10% in favour would sound sensible. The majority of people
couldn't care less either way, wont' read this page and won't bother to
vote. The majority of cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a
helmet always, occasionally, or never, will be sensible enough to let
others make their own choice. So we're really only left with the tail
of idiots.

I wonder when this idiot will stop?

Tim.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> While I don't approve of this kind of skullduggery on either side, why
> are you surprised?

I'm not surprised, except perhaps that it took so long for someone to
start.

> What goes around comes around....
>
Meaning?

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> That probably shows that there hasn't been much ballot stuffing up
> until now. 5-10% in favour would sound sensible.

Agreed.

> The majority of people
> couldn't care less either way, wont' read this page and won't bother to
> vote. The majority of cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a
> helmet always, occasionally, or never, will be sensible enough to let
> others make their own choice. So we're really only left with the tail
> of idiots.

But think of the children. :-\
>
> I wonder when this idiot will stop?
>
I expect they'll just leave it running until the poll closes.

 

[Paul Boyd]

[email protected] said the following on 16/08/2006 13:40:

> I wonder when this idiot will stop?

Probably when he shuts his computer off. This looks like a automated
script rather than someone just sitting there. This is easy enough to
do for the right person, and hopefully the people running the vote will
see what's going on. The sheer number so far at over 6200 is
exceptional enough to attract attention. Rob's post was at 13:18, it is
now 14:09, and the count is still rising.

Just as well it's only a bit of fun, eh, chaps????

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Alex]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > While I don't approve of this kind of skullduggery on either side, why
> > are you surprised?
>
> I'm not surprised, except perhaps that it took so long for someone to
> start.
>
> > What goes around comes around....
> >
> Meaning?

Look at the first few threads in this thread.

-Alex (voted just the once)

 

[Alex]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > While I don't approve of this kind of skullduggery on either side, why
> > are you surprised?
>
> I'm not surprised, except perhaps that it took so long for someone to
> start.
>
> > What goes around comes around....
> >
> Meaning?

Look at the first few posts in this thread.

-Alex (voted just the once)

 

[jtaylor]

"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] said the following on 16/08/2006 13:40:
>
> > I wonder when this idiot will stop?
>
> Probably when he shuts his computer off. This looks like a automated
> script rather than someone just sitting there. This is easy enough to
> do for the right person, and hopefully the people running the vote will
> see what's going on. The sheer number so far at over 6200 is
> exceptional enough to attract attention. Rob's post was at 13:18, it is
> now 14:09, and the count is still rising.
>
> Just as well it's only a bit of fun, eh, chaps????
>

The pro-helmet zealots in rec.bicycles.tech are being - as usual -
inconsistent about this:

a) first claiming that such tactics (if they were employed by people who do
not want an MHL) are "sleazy"; then

b) when one of their own is actually shown to be doing this: "What a
hoot!!!!" (a USofA expression of approval).

On second thought, there's actually a wierd sort of consistency here after
all - their response to bad science which purports to show a helmet benefit
is to ignore the bad and shout the numbers.

It would be interesting to find out from the pollsters what IP - and from
where - is producing these "hootish" results.

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> > Just as well it's only a bit of fun, eh, chaps????
> >
>
> It would be interesting to find out from the pollsters what IP - and from
> where - is producing these "hootish" results.

Unfortuately, it now appears someone is doing the same thing the other
way. :-(

Tim.