Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



On 13 Aug 2005 00:16:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. And I just reviewed that thread, where I made that same
>> statement on June 1, 2005. You certainly didn't deny it then.

>
>You make up so much **** that it is virtually impossible
>to refute every wild claim.
>
>Speaking of which, what post was that in which I
>supposedly 'didn't deny it' when you repeated your wild
>claim that I had been hit while running a red light?
>Because I can't seem to find it. Could it be you are
>just blatantly making **** up again?
>
>> Are you _sure_ you've denied it "several times"?

>
>Yes I am sure I have had the opportunity to deny it
>several times.


That's a weird statement. F asks if you have denided in several times
and you say you've had the "opportunity" to do so.

Can you give an example of where you actualy denied earlier it?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
I submit that on or about Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:36:34 -0700, the person
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>But in spite of all that, my nephew says that the German government claims a
>lower per-mile fatality rate on it's freeways than we have in the USA. The
>operative word, of course, is "claims"....


The claim is correct. But the UK, where highway speeds are limited to
70mph, has half the highway fatality rate of Germany.

This is not the only situation where people with an agenda seek to
duplicate what happens in one place while quietly ignoring the fact
that other places, which do not follow their agenda, have a much
better safety record...
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. And I just reviewed that thread, where I made that same
> > statement on June 1, 2005. You certainly didn't deny it then.

>
> You make up so much **** that it is virtually impossible
> to refute every wild claim.
>
> Speaking of which, what post was that in which I
> supposedly 'didn't deny it' when you repeated your wild
> claim that I had been hit while running a red light?
> Because I can't seem to find it. Could it be you are
> just blatantly making **** up again?


Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
rec.bicycles.misc

In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
- or ever, IIRC.

The crash seemed interesting to me, because that character seemed to
frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.

> > Are you _sure_ you've denied it "several times"?

>
> Yes I am sure I have had the opportunity to deny it
> several times.


Slow down, R15757. I asked about what you did, not about the
opportunities you've had!


>
> > Maybe I should ask: Am I correct you were hit by a car at least once?

>
> Yes I was involved in one pretty fair crack-up, but
> it occurred when I was riding lawfully, like most of the
> accidents/injuries involving experienced adult riders.


But no more than one? I'm now worried about half-truths.


> So, how did we end up our discussion of your bogus
> comparison between cycling and basketball? I guess your
> changing the subject is not a signal that you have
> given up the ghost on that one. I'm pretty sure it'll
> pop up again shortly, probably within a day or two,
> along with the whole sofas and beds thing, and even
> the bogus unsubstantiated claims about per-hour this-
> and-that. Frank is completely unencumbered by Reality.


:) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.


- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
> be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
> rec.bicycles.misc
>
> In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
> hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
> recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
> posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
> - or ever, IIRC.


If I didn't answer your 'IIRC, you were hit while running
a red light' schtick that time, it was because I was
already sick of doing so.

For instance, November 2004.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...:[email protected]&rnum=2&hl=en#9fedac6e65b8c893

So NOW did you get it through your thick skull?

> The crash seemed interesting to me, because that

character seemed to
> frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
> saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.


You are completely making **** up. There is no such
'character.' There is no such crash.

> > > Maybe I should ask: Am I correct you were hit by a car at least once?

> >
> > Yes I was involved in one pretty fair crack-up, but
> > it occurred when I was riding lawfully, like most of the
> > accidents/injuries involving experienced adult riders.

>
> But no more than one? I'm now worried about half-truths.


You're worried about half truths!! Oh that's rich.

Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
And that came after I had already ridden well over
200,000 miles.

> > So, how did we end up our discussion of your bogus
> > comparison between cycling and basketball? I guess your
> > changing the subject is not a signal that you have
> > given up the ghost on that one. I'm pretty sure it'll
> > pop up again shortly, probably within a day or two,
> > along with the whole sofas and beds thing, and even
> > the bogus unsubstantiated claims about per-hour this-
> > and-that. Frank is completely unencumbered by Reality.

>
> :) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
> library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.


'Discuss it?' No, you are not willing to discuss it.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Referring to what I wrote above, it was a post by someone claiming to
> > be "R15757" made on June 1, 2005, in the thread "Re: Helmets" on
> > rec.bicycles.misc
> >
> > In my post just previous to that one, I said (again) that you'd been
> > hit by a car when you ran a red light. Again, that was my
> > recollection, but again, it may have been another bike messenger who
> > posts anonymously. Still, you did NOT question that in your reply then
> > - or ever, IIRC.

>
> If I didn't answer your 'IIRC, you were hit while running
> a red light' schtick that time, it was because I was
> already sick of doing so.
>
> For instance, November 2004.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...:[email protected]&rnum=2&hl=en#9fedac6e65b8c893
>
> So NOW did you get it through your thick skull?


OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

>
> > The crash seemed interesting to me, because that

> character seemed to
> > frequently say cycling was dangerous (as you tend to do) while also
> > saying that following the rules of the road is irrelevant.

>
> You are completely making **** up. There is no such
> 'character.' There is no such crash.


Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
difficult at best.


>
> Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> And that came after I had already ridden well over
> 200,000 miles.


Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)


> >
> > :) I'm one of the few people posting who are willing to go to the
> > library, get national data, post it here with sources, and discuss it.

>
> 'Discuss it?' No, you are not willing to discuss it.


????

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.


And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
be interested to go back and read that thread. Of all
the messengers I know and all the incidents I have heard
about, I know of only one incident of a messenger being
hit while running a light. I'm not saying it doesn't
happen, I'm saying that messengers are probably even
more likely than other adult riders to have any collision
occur while going through a green rather than a red.

> Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
> And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
> posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
> difficult at best.


How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
to advanced groups search and off you go. Just show
that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.
Otherwise, quit claiming that I did this and that and
then saying 'oh, I must have you confused with that
other anonymous bike messenger' after I call you on it.
You have pulled this little trick like a dozen times in
the past few years. 'Distasteful' is about the gentlest
term I can think of to describe it.

> > Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> > And that came after I had already ridden well over
> > 200,000 miles.

>
> Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)


That's not exactly the lesson I would take away from
that, for those out there interested in learning from
the experiences of others. The only way a person can
ride over 200,000 miles primarily in heavy traffic and
not get hit by a car is to maintain a state of
rather serious and constant vigilance. This state of
vigilance does not spring from a happy mindset of
cycling is 'safe,' but from another mindset entirely.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> > have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

>
> And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
> be interested to go back and read that thread.


I'd be interested in it, too, just to see how it went. IIRC, the
context was a messenger saying that a) cycling is dangerous b)
cyclists don't really need to follow the rules. He mentioned only
parenthetically that he'd been hit, and it was only on questioning that
he admitted he was running a light at the time.

>
> > Sorry, I'm not making this up. There's a chance I'm remembering wrong.
> > And I doubt we'll be able to say who the victim was, because he was
> > posting anonymously, as you do. I can try searching, but it'll be
> > difficult at best.

>
> How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
> to advanced groups search and off you go.


Very seriously, what key words would you suggest? At this point, I
don't remember even the topic of the thread, or I would have searched
on that.

I can try casting around, but given that this was perhaps three years
ago, I'm not confident of finding anything.

> Just show
> that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
> messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.


Do you understand the difficulty in dealing with anonymous posters?
How do I prove that there was "another" anonymous bicycle messenger
when there are people posting extensively, using different accounts and
different handles, but not giving any consistent name?

Claiming there is another anonymous bike messenger is quite different
from claiming there is "another Sheldon Brown" or "another Jobst
Brandt" for obvious reasons.

> > > Sorry, no more than one encounter with a motor vehicle.
> > > And that came after I had already ridden well over
> > > 200,000 miles.

> >
> > Wow. Good record. See? Cycling _can_ be safe! ;-)

>
> That's not exactly the lesson I would take away from
> that, for those out there interested in learning from
> the experiences of others. The only way a person can
> ride over 200,000 miles primarily in heavy traffic and
> not get hit by a car is to maintain a state of
> rather serious and constant vigilance. This state of
> vigilance does not spring from a happy mindset of
> cycling is 'safe,' but from another mindset entirely.


It's obvious that cycling in heavy traffic requires constant vigilance.
That's how I ride in that situation.

OTOH, most cycling is not done in heavy traffic, just as most cycling
is not done in crit races or careening down technical rocky single
track. On average, cycling miles are far more relaxed than that.

If you want to tell people that you believe cycling is dangerous, at
least be specific about the type of riding you're specifying.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > OK, if you didn't get hit while running a red light, I apologize. I
> > > have you confused with another anonymous bike messenger.

> >
> > And if you're not just making it up completely, I would
> > be interested to go back and read that thread.

>
> I'd be interested in it, too, just to see how it went. IIRC, the
> context was a messenger saying that a) cycling is dangerous b)
> cyclists don't really need to follow the rules. He mentioned only
> parenthetically that he'd been hit, and it was only on questioning that
> he admitted he was running a light at the time.


Oh what a tangled web we weave. You seem to remember
many details about this exchange with the mystery
poster.

> > How difficult could it be? Just plug in some key words
> > to advanced groups search and off you go.

>
> Very seriously, what key words would you suggest?


Start with 'messenger' or 'courier.' Obviously, since
you remember oh-so-clearly that this was a bike
messenger, at some point he must have told you so,
right? There are only so many words that he could have
used to impart this information, and it is quite
likely that you would have quoted his disclosure in
at least one of your replies. Or, search your posts
for the word 'light' or 'lights' then cull out all the
posts which concern running red lights and look through
them.

> At this point, I
> don't remember even the topic of the thread, or I would have searched
> on that.
>
> I can try casting around, but given that this was perhaps three years
> ago, I'm not confident of finding anything.


If this thread or this person actually existed and you
actually corresponded with them on rec.bikes, it would
be fairly easy to find.

> > Just show
> > that there was at least one other 'anonymous bicycle
> > messenger' that you have corresponded with on usenet.

>
> Do you understand the difficulty in dealing with anonymous posters?
> How do I prove that there was "another" anonymous bicycle messenger
> when there are people posting extensively, using different accounts and
> different handles, but not giving any consistent name?


I always sign my posts 'Robert,' or very rarely with a
simple 'R.' I am as consistent as any poster on usenet.
Try being more observant.

> Claiming there is another anonymous bike messenger is quite different
> from claiming there is "another Sheldon Brown" or "another Jobst
> Brandt" for obvious reasons.


Yeah, you obviously couldn't get away with claiming there
is another Jobst, but you THINK you can get away with
claiming there is another anomymous poster 'with similar
handle' or whatever. But your smokescreen isn't as thick
as you seem to think.


> It's obvious that cycling in heavy traffic requires constant vigilance.
> That's how I ride in that situation.


What about MUPs, suburbs? You find it's okay
to let your guard down there?

> OTOH, most cycling is not done in heavy traffic,


That's a myopic proclamation (typical for tourists
and 'club cyclists') that is probably plain untrue.
Consider the unknown quantities of low-income commuters
on Walmart bikes, the messengers who ride miles way
out of proportion to their small numbers, and the tens
of thousands of yuppie commuters in big cities like
New York.

> just as most cycling
> is not done in crit races or careening down technical rocky single
> track. On average, cycling miles are far more relaxed than that.


I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
cycling' is not. I went for a nice four-hour trail ride
today, and as usual I felt much safer on the trail
than I felt on the approach to the trail, which was on
suburban roads. This was not an illusion in my mind, it
was Reality. Even while racing criteriums, in which
wrecks are common and injuries are fairly common, the
racers are 'safer' in the sense that motor traffic is
removed from the equation, and along with it most of
the chance for serious injury or death. 'Normal cycling'
is the most 'dangerous' type of cycling, in that it
almost always occurs in proximity to some degree of
motor traffic. Statistically the most 'dangerous'
type of cycling is done by children on their suburban
streets.

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Whoa. When you take offense, you really set in concrete, don't you?


Flip-flop. "You're the stone one".

> You seem to think there's absolutely no way you could be
> misunderstanding my intention - but what if you _are_ wrong?


I see you casting aspersions, using juxtapositions, and then ducking
out when called on it. Over and over. Like this:

(I wrote):
> > > > Then there's always the time you vented your helmet-hating spleen on me
> > > > to tell me my daughter wouldn't leave the house before she was forty
> > > > since I made her wear a bike helmet. What do you call that, Frank?


(FK):
> > > Um... a lie?

(snipped, continues):
> But your specific accusation is false, isn't it? Specifically, I did
> not say your daughter would never leave the house until >she's 40.


That's right, you didn't. You put a picture in the air, with the clear
intent to insult and denigrate. Now you're wiggling.
Take some credit for your work, Frank.

> I'll also point out that if you had been signing your real name back
> then and now, I might have recalled who I responded to in that post.
> Maybe not, of course - it _has_ been almost five years - but it is a
> benefit of not hiding one's identity.


Tough toenails.

> And incidentally, I really do think you need to calm down, at least to
> the point where you write in complete sentences. You know: use a
> subject, a predicate, and all that?


Sniff sniff.

> It's obvious we disagree on the
> child-padding issues, but there's no reason for you to be so incredibly
> angry that you can't communicate.


The communcation was successful.
>
> In fact, there's no reason for you to be angry at all. This is Usenet.
> People will disagree. Calm yourself.


Calm yourself to the point where you can disagree without the sarcasm
and personal aspersions: "Your daughter is going to grow up like my
neighbor since you made her wear a helmet". "And I know of another case
like her, and you". "Lab rats". "Hand wringer". So on and so forth.

Gonna pretend you "didn't understand" again? Golly gee. This is usenet,
Frank. Saving electrons.

Hey, we were just looking at pics of the school show where my daughter
took second in points, one each morning and afternoon. You know, that
incredibly dangerous horse riding activity? Numbers on that yet, FK?
Let's see, I'm a handwringer because I supplied elbow and knee pads for
learning to get up on two wheels, and when I let my daughter ride
horses, I'm being "inconsistent" because horse riding is so incredibly
dangerous (the 1500lb animal thing).

Do you realize the harm you're doing to equestrian sport with your
alarmist attitude? <g> Are you just a handwringing mommie at heart?
Boy, sure sounds like it to me! Scared of horses? Why? Were you
frightened all the time while riding, Frank? Something you were forced
into as a child? It is the boys, by a huge percentage, who are
frightened away from riding. Did you have a sister who was braver than
you? And rode successfully while you slunk away? Did you have a place
on the playground? Away from the teachers' skirts?

I didn't call you a handwringing mommie, or a coward. I merely asked a
question or two. If it bothers you to see "Frank Krygowsky" and
"handwringing mommie", or "coward" so close together, just remember
that this is usenet and people will disagree. --TP
 
If we read this we discover that Paterson has the idea that Frank is stupid
for not remembering he insulted him when he was posting under a different
name than he uses now. But then that's the problem with trying to hide your
identity so that your employer can't discover what you're doing during
working hours.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh what a tangled web we weave. You seem to remember
> many details about this exchange with the mystery
> poster.


It so happens I remember that particular conversation as well and I also
remember it the way that Frank does. If you have a different version you're
perfectly free to google it up and show us.

> I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
> mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
> cycling' is not.


Of course you do. Whereas only a very small number of people practice
"technical mountain biking" and yet comprise something like 5% of the
fatalities if I remember correctly.

Now, mind you, that STILL isn't very dangerous, but since mountain biking
has the sort of accidents in general for which a helmet is at least in the
proper speed regime, you can make a lot better case for forcing helmets onto
off-road mtn biking that on-road biking.
 
"Paul Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>
>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe car accidents are more lethal - and maybe death doesn't get
>>> reported into
>>> "injuries".

>>
>> Actually, with bicycle accidents that is sometimes the case. I.e., one
>> study showed _less_ serious injuries for non-helmeted riders, but higher
>> fatalities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reason
>> for this.

>
> What study is that?
>
> --
> Paul Turner


Is this THE Paul Turner of Rock Shox fame?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > In fact, there's no reason for you to be angry at all. This is Usenet.
> > People will disagree. Calm yourself.

>
> Calm yourself to the point where you can disagree without the sarcasm
> and personal aspersions...


Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
actually said.

If you're this sensitive to mild disagreement, you probably need a
different hobby. Usenet is not for you.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> If we read this we


There's your "wee-wee" problem again, TK>

discover that Paterson has the idea that Frank is stupid
> for not remembering he insulted him when he was posting under a different
> name than he uses now. But then that's the problem with trying to hide your
> identity so that your employer can't discover what you're doing during
> working hours.


1) You know I'm retired. Or you can pull a junvenile Frank Krygowsky
move, and pretend you don't remember. Sniff, sniff.

2) My name was at the top of every post until AOL stopped supporting
their newsreader a few months ago. So that's five years or close
enough; name name name. So "google already".
Just a little snit in the first place, of course.

3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se. I think he's got a huge
problem with helmets, to the point where anyone who says anything "in
favor" is fair game for a tarbrushing. (Examples): "Your daughter will
be a social cripple". "You are a handwringer if your kids use kneepads
and elbow pads while learning to ride a two-wheeler". "If you wear a
helmet, you are one of those stupid people who doesn't even know which
side of the street to ride on".

When I post to the contrary on the "handwringer" nonsense, there is no
yielding on the point: "You are weird if you let your daughter ride
horses but make her wear a helmet on her bicycle".

IOW, even when I "agree" that the "helmet saved my life" thing is of
very little importance compared to knowing traffic rules and
"protecting yourself at all times", Frank continues to blast away
because his emotions get in the way of his thinking.
Yes, there is a problem when you can't admit that you have been wrong.

You've been known to participate in this sort of business, yourself.
--D.u.s.t.o.y.e.v.s.k.y.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> 3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.


People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.

It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
> your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
> actually said.


It's what you actually said. You actually trotted out example after
example of people you compared me to by juxtaposition. My daughter will
be a social cripple like your neighbor, I'm one of the stupid people
who doesn't know which side of the road to ride on, etc. etc.; no
matter what I say to prove you wrong-- and you are wrong-- it doesn't
matter because I have a helmet rule and had the kids use elbow/knee
pads to learn on. Red flag in front of the Krygowsky bull, snort snort.


> If you're this sensitive to mild disagreement, you probably >need a different hobby. Usenet is not for you.


And the grand pronouncement. What a joke.

Wow, are we just entirely eaten up with a grandiose sense of
self-importance or what?

I'll be around. If you can't handle that, maybe you should leave <g>.
Or at least take a vakay, get some pro help with your anger management
and projection problems.

Thanks for the suggestion (google?) on the knee/elbow pads, BTW. Our
driveway is one of those rough, deep-etched things where the aggregate
is exposed. Saved a lot of pain and healing time, and band-aids
('nother incomplete sentence) (sniff sniff).

Besides demon bike riding, #2 is swimming in the deep end of the pool
now, after a summer of near-daily swim lessons. "Water wings", like the
pads, are baby stuff (Frank Krygowsky, juxtaposition) and he doesn't
use them anymore. "Served their purpose". "Reasonable precaution".
--D-U-S-T-O-Y-E-V-S-K-Y
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
> > your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
> > actually said.

>
> It's what you actually said.


If it were what I actually said, you'd be quoting, not
mis-paraphrasing.


>
> I'll be around. If you can't handle that, maybe you should leave <g>.
> Or at least take a vakay, get some pro help with your anger management
> and projection problems.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion (google?) on the knee/elbow pads, BTW. Our
> driveway is one of those rough, deep-etched things where the aggregate
> is exposed. Saved a lot of pain and healing time, and band-aids
> ('nother incomplete sentence) (sniff sniff).


No problem. We each write at our own intellectual and emotional level.

> Besides demon bike riding, #2 is swimming in the deep end of the pool
> now, after a summer of near-daily swim lessons. "Water wings", like the
> pads, are baby stuff (Frank Krygowsky, juxtaposition) and he doesn't
> use them anymore. "Served their purpose". "Reasonable precaution".
> --D-U-S-T-O-Y-E-V-S-K-Y


:) You think _I_ need anger management? Amazing!

I do wonder why a person would enter a discussion where there's bound
to be disagreement, if he can't stand others disagreeing with him.

- Frank Krygowski
 
I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:32:23 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.


Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
helmets.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
>>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.


>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>helmets.


Don't forget aluminum frames.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
> helmets.


Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
great.

Look at the writings of Ken Kifer if you would like to learn from
someone who was able to understand that what he chose to do, was not
necessarily the best choice for everyone. For example, on the subject of
lights for commuting, he wrote, "For commuters, the best front light is
the very bright rechargeable lamp."