Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:12:23 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
>then I've said all I'm going to.


You're missing the most meta-point of all -- you're deeply,
emotionally invested in the importance of helmets and unfortunately
the reality you experience does not support that attachment. So you
dance around. Among other things, Franks assertions should be forcing
you to strip away the biases that cloud your thinking, but you can't
seem to deal with that.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

>
> You're missing the most meta-point of all -- you're deeply,
> emotionally invested in the importance of helmets and unfortunately
> the reality you experience does not support that attachment. So you
> dance around. Among other things, Franks assertions should be forcing
> you to strip away the biases that cloud your thinking, but you can't
> seem to deal with that.
>
> JT


Wow, John--years of therapy and no one's ever come to the root of my
problem as you just have!
I don't think you understand me at all. I agree that the newer helmets
are likely of little significance in major trauma. The reality I have
experienced is that protection against both head and other trauma while
cycling is in fact a real issue. Meanwhile, Frank says it is not an
issue, which is fine with me. Just don't lecture me about my "biases",
and don't tell me that the dead and maimed shouldn't be important enough
for me to be concerned about.

Steve
>
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
In article <bTGNe.221$Ck2.4@trndny04>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!
> >>>
> >>>Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
> >>>not even close.
> >>
> >>
> >>>But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
> >>>many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
> >>>curious whether your group fits the national profile.
> >>
> >> All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
> >>accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
> >>brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
> >>than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
> >>prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.

> >
> >
> > That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
> > slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
> > injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
> > incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.
> >
> > So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
> > of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
> > severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
> > severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
> > serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
> > nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.

>
> Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
> then I've said all I'm going to.
> Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
> look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
> could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
> acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries. He
> went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
> broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
> would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
> their promotion would discourage cycling. I told him that, having known
> much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
> (including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
> to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
> callous. In fact, many of these head injuries occured while wearing a
> helmet (including my own). It is very much an open issue to me whether
> the helmet helped me at all in this case; Frank's answer is that he's a
> mechanical engineer (for crying out loud!) and how dare I call him on
> his disinterest in this issue. So for ME it's about more than helmets.
> For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
> maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
> cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
> better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.
>


The cost/benefit ratio for helmet promotion is very much
greater than the cost/benefit ratio for informational
programs aimed at cyclists and motorists. Who has denied
that drawing attention to dangerous behaviors of cyclists
and motorists is important? You falsely accuse Frank.

Much good can be accomplished telling cyclists which of
their behaviors are dangerous, such as riding the wrong
side of the road. Much good could be accomplished by the
Department of Motor Vehicles if they started adding test
questions based on sections of the vehicle code that apply
to cyclists.

--
Michael Press
 
RonSonic wrote:

> Ahh, but he _could._
>
> Ron


As you well know, I've provided considerable detail, and citiations,
regarding lighting systems. Many people appreciate the detailed
responses, as well as the content on the web site
(http://bicyclelighting.com). There are a few people for whom such
detail has not served even to broaden their perspective, much less
change their mind.

If someone is actually interested in learning something, rather than
just being a jerk, I am happy to provide citations. To some people, it's
all about defending their faith, rather than looking objectively at the
facts, so responding in detail is a waste of time. They know full well
where to look for the details that they claim to need.
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
> look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
> could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
> acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries.


Which is, of course, absolutely false.

First: I listed at least four ways in which bike helmets could be made
more protective. Not all of them required the helmet looking like a
motorcycle helmet. Yes, it's true that current full-face motorcycle
helmets would have those features; but that does NOT mean every helmet
with those features would look like a motorcycle helmet. If that
difference isn't apparent to you, I suggest some training in logic.

Second: There are _many_ ways I know about helmet design, and what it
would take to make helmets more protective. First, I've got degrees in
Mechanical Engineering. I'm a licensed Professional Engineer (just as,
I assume, you are a licensed dentist). I've studied the issue of bike
helmets intensely for well over ten years. In fact, I first started
learning about helmet design at a conference in 1970, where I attended
a presentation on that topic. At one point, I even did comparative
tests on a wide variety of foams used for impact protection.

I'll admit I don't know much about teeth. But there's no way I'd say
_you_ (a licensed dentist) don't know about teeth. Similarly, it's
ludicrous for you to say I don't know about helmets. You don't have
the knowledge or background to judge.


> He
> went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
> broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
> would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
> their promotion would discourage cycling.


And this is true. In fact, I would not be interested in developing
safer bike helmets for the same reason I would not be interested in
developing safer pedestrian helmets. For both ordinary cycling and
ordinary walking, the level of danger is low enough that special
headgear is unnecessary. And we don't need people pretending
otherwise.

> I told him that, having known
> much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
> (including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
> to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
> callous.


Yes, and I've known people that have been badly injured by walking.
Worse, I've lost count of the friends I've lost to driving fatalities.
Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
examples of tragic injuries.

But your accusation that I avoid the issue of cycling safety simply
shows that' you're speaking in ignorance. Read the safety articles at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html
That's a website I helped found. I also wrote many of the articles
posted there. And, BTW, I've been Safety Chairman of my fairly large
bike club for many years. I've put on many presentations related to
bike safety and taught many classes on bike safety, as well as other
aspects of cycling. I'm a certified League Cycling Instructor. Have
you done as much?


But I'm very interested in your attitude that if someone is skeptical
of helmets, they must not care about safety. IOW, your mind confuses
"Safety" and "Helmet," as if helmets are all there is to bike safety.
It's a common mistake since helmet promotion hit high gear - but it's
(sorry) quite stupid.


> For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
> maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
> cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
> better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.


You've proven you know nothing about my background, the causes I
advocate, my knowledge or my skills. When a person knows as little as
you do about a subject, they really should stop talking. It's the only
way to prevent looking foolish.

- Frank Krygowski
 
I submit that on or about Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<MQPNe.10010$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>As you well know, I've provided considerable detail, and citiations,
>regarding lighting systems.


Albeit they fall short of actually supporting your dogmatic assertion
that dynamo lighting is less "inadequate". Comparative per-mile
casualty data would do. Indeed, that would seem to be the very
minimum required for such a strongly-stated position. "Don't trust
the generator lighting systems on these bikes!" - to set your own view
above that of the manufacturers and owners of these bikes definitely
needs some real, externally verifiable evidence.

>Many people appreciate the detailed
>responses, as well as the content on the web site
>(http://bicyclelighting.com). There are a few people for whom such
>detail has not served even to broaden their perspective, much less
>change their mind.


Incredible, isn't it? People should be grateful for your taking time
out of your busy schedule to tell them their experience counts for
nothing, their judgment is worthless and their assessment of the
benefits of different types of system is necessarily wrong! They
should realise: you are one of Earth's greatest authorities on bicycle
lighting! We know it's true because it's on a website somewhere...

In reality, of course, you are once again accusing others of your own
worst fault. The clue here is that those with whom you argue support
*both* choices - dynamo or rechargeable - whereas you dismiss one out
of hand, and killfile those who ask you for evidence to back that up.

The **** about "broadening their perspective" is particularly ironic,
since what you are doing is actually to /narrow/ perspective by
dismissing dynamo lighting out of hand!

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
 
I submit that on or about Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:44:28 GMT, the person
known to the court as RonSonic <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>Ahh, but he _could._


As we see, Steven restricts himself to alluding to other times when he
says he has cited relevant evidence. How dare we disagree with on of
Earth's greatest experts? If he says something it is up to us to go
and find the citations to back him up!

If you keep pressing him for evidence you're asking to be killfiled,
my friend!

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:

> Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
> examples of tragic injuries.


Just because you're a mechanical engineer, you think you know
everything and can pronounce on subjects which you have no experience
in. How much have you knitted over the years? Have you ever belonged to
a knitting club, where you could meet a statistically significant
sample that you might learn from? Many of my friends have had tragic
injuries while knitting and your callousness towards their suffering is
beyond the pale. Just because you haven't seen them on Jerry Springer,
you think they don't exist.

Oh, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll have you know
that because I'm more concerned about safety than you, I decided to
take my life seriously and knit myself a helmet. Wouldn't you know but
I knocked a tooth out with a #16 steel needle, that's right, the one
they call Big Bertha. If only I had been wearing a helmet.


r
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
>>examples of tragic injuries.

>
>
> Just because you're a mechanical engineer, you think you know
> everything and can pronounce on subjects which you have no experience
> in. How much have you knitted over the years? Have you ever belonged to
> a knitting club, where you could meet a statistically significant
> sample that you might learn from? Many of my friends have had tragic
> injuries while knitting and your callousness towards their suffering is
> beyond the pale. Just because you haven't seen them on Jerry Springer,
> you think they don't exist.
>
> Oh, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll have you know
> that because I'm more concerned about safety than you, I decided to
> take my life seriously and knit myself a helmet. Wouldn't you know but
> I knocked a tooth out with a #16 steel needle, that's right, the one
> they call Big Bertha. If only I had been wearing a helmet.
>
>
> r
>


Giggle, giggle, giggle. Yer a funny guy!
Thanks for bringing some levity to this thread.

Robin Hubert
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:


>> I really need to go on a long bike ride instead of arguing on usenet,
>> but the bike shop hasn't finished fixing my brakes yet, and the
>> weather 'round here sucks this weekend anyways. But I definitely
>> need to find something to do where being grumpy won't lead to
>> embarassing myself in public.
>> If you[1] catch me posting again before the end of the weekend, beat
>> me over the head with a crushed helmet or some other suitable
>> implement.

>
>Just wear your helmet.


When am I supposed to be wearing the helmet? For the beating that was
supposed to discourage me from posting until I'd taken a weekend off?
That'd've kind of defeated the purpose. (See? Risk compensation!)
For the computer work I ended up doing instead? It didn't go as well
as I'd've liked, but since I Don't Do Windows I was in no danger of
wanting to beat my head on the wall or anything, so a helmet wouldn't've
helped any there (and no, I'm not going to wear a helmet just so I
can use Windows without hurting my head banging it against the wall).
For the ride that'd've been rather more helpful than just a weekend off?
Can't do that until I get my bike back (hopefully today).


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
It is always satisfying to be able to insult people without them realizing it
... Of course the downside is insulting without realizing you are doing so.
--CBFalconer in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Vandervies wrote:

>
>>> I really need to go on a long bike ride instead of arguing on
>>> usenet, but the bike shop hasn't finished fixing my brakes yet, and
>>> the weather 'round here sucks this weekend anyways. But I
>>> definitely need to find something to do where being grumpy won't
>>> lead to embarassing myself in public.
>>> If you[1] catch me posting again before the end of the weekend, beat
>>> me over the head with a crushed helmet or some other suitable
>>> implement.

>>
>> Just wear your helmet. {smiley thing went here}

>
> When am I supposed to be wearing the helmet? For the beating that was
> supposed to discourage me from posting until I'd taken a weekend off?
> That'd've kind of defeated the purpose. (See? Risk compensation!)
> For the computer work I ended up doing instead? It didn't go as well
> as I'd've liked, but since I Don't Do Windows I was in no danger of
> wanting to beat my head on the wall or anything, so a helmet
> wouldn't've helped any there (and no, I'm not going to wear a helmet
> just so I
> can use Windows without hurting my head banging it against the wall).
> For the ride that'd've been rather more helpful than just a weekend
> off? Can't do that until I get my bike back (hopefully today).


Sheesh. In the time it took you to write THAT you could have geared up for
/another/ ride!

:p
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Risk compensation is real, and denying it is vacuous.

>
> No one is denying it. I am denying that safety measures are fruitless.
> I think it was Guy who suggested that road signs be removed in order
> to make vehicular traffic safer.


You obviously think that is a totally loony suggestion, but you might
want to do a little more reading first. A number of countries have
experimented with this with fair degrees of success.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
To accuse others for one's own misfortunes is a sign of want of education.
To accuse oneself shows that one's education has begun. To accuse neither
oneself nor others shows that one's education is complete.
-- Epictetus
 
"Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
> safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
> people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.


Steve, let me see if I can explain this so that you understand - there isn't
enough space and the head and neck arne't capable of carrying enough weight
to make an effective helmet for the market.

No material improvements will make any difference at all. What is required
is for human beings to have shoulders about 5" wider, chests 5" deeper and
necks capable of carrying an additional 1 lb of protection that will weigh
300 lbs or more on impact.

I've got to tell you, for anyone that understands engineering that has
actually thought about the problem of helmets, it is almost a joke. I even
had Dr. Shively, the DEAN of helmets as past director of the Snell Institute
admit at the transportation committee in Sacramento that no possible helmet
can make a difference in any accident which would normally cause a fatality
on a motorcycle.

You can suggest a set of circumstances in which a helmet that is possible to
build might have some salient effect, but the truth is that when you go
through accident reports like some of us have, you don't find accidents of
those types.

Of course I have to say this every time because elsewise I'm branded
"anti-helmet" - the most common accidents in which the human head hits the
ground is a relatively mild blow. The modern bicycle helmet probably
provides some reasonable protection against these accidents. And since they
comprise 90% or more of "head injury" accidents it isn't any surprise that
you get thousands of people telling us that they're lives were saved because
their helmets have a small chunk broken off a corner of one of the edges.

But helmets aren't marketed as devices to make a relatively minor accident
less severe. They're marketed as "Helmets Save Lives" and that is a lie and
every helmet manufacturer knows that. In fact Bell Sports even got out of
the motorcycle helmet business and into the bicycle helmet business for
exactly that reason. Their lawyers told them that sooner or later a
motorcycle accident victim's family was going sue them out of business. The
only business they had was "safety helmets" and so they invented the BICYCLE
helmet, not because there was any need for it, but in fact exactly the
opposite - the number of death on bicycles is so small and the causes of
death so massive that they would ALWAYS be able to argue in court that even
if the helmet had worked 100% the victim would still be dead and so the fact
that the helmet had little or no effect would be moot.

The statistics are plain and easy to read - there are no reductions in
serious or fatal head injuries that are attributable to helmets and that is
the plain unvarnished truth.

Suggesting that there would be "improvements" to helmets only demonstrates
that you don't understand the underlying engineering principles.
 
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bTGNe.221$Ck2.4@trndny04...
>
> Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and then
> I've said all I'm going to.
> Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to look
> like a motorcycle helmet.


That's sort of a problem Steve. A better helmet COULD be made but it would
be usable. And perhaps that's what you didn't understand from Frank. 6" of
foam would ALWAYS make the performance of the helmet superior in the
collision test. But it wouldn't be a usable helmet.
 
Drat! Make that UNusable.

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:bTGNe.221$Ck2.4@trndny04...
>>
>> Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and then
>> I've said all I'm going to.
>> Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
>> look like a motorcycle helmet.

>
> That's sort of a problem Steve. A better helmet COULD be made but it would
> be usable. And perhaps that's what you didn't understand from Frank. 6" of
> foam would ALWAYS make the performance of the helmet superior in the
> collision test. But it wouldn't be a usable helmet.
>
>
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
>>safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
>>people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.

>
>
> Steve, let me see if I can explain this so that you understand - there isn't
> enough space and the head and neck arne't capable of carrying enough weight
> to make an effective helmet for the market.
>
> No material improvements will make any difference at all. What is required
> is for human beings to have shoulders about 5" wider, chests 5" deeper and
> necks capable of carrying an additional 1 lb of protection that will weigh
> 300 lbs or more on impact.
>
> I've got to tell you, for anyone that understands engineering that has
> actually thought about the problem of helmets, it is almost a joke. I even
> had Dr. Shively, the DEAN of helmets as past director of the Snell Institute
> admit at the transportation committee in Sacramento that no possible helmet
> can make a difference in any accident which would normally cause a fatality
> on a motorcycle.
>
> You can suggest a set of circumstances in which a helmet that is possible to
> build might have some salient effect, but the truth is that when you go
> through accident reports like some of us have, you don't find accidents of
> those types.
>
> Of course I have to say this every time because elsewise I'm branded
> "anti-helmet" - the most common accidents in which the human head hits the
> ground is a relatively mild blow. The modern bicycle helmet probably
> provides some reasonable protection against these accidents. And since they
> comprise 90% or more of "head injury" accidents it isn't any surprise that
> you get thousands of people telling us that they're lives were saved because
> their helmets have a small chunk broken off a corner of one of the edges.
>
> But helmets aren't marketed as devices to make a relatively minor accident
> less severe. They're marketed as "Helmets Save Lives" and that is a lie and
> every helmet manufacturer knows that. In fact Bell Sports even got out of
> the motorcycle helmet business and into the bicycle helmet business for
> exactly that reason. Their lawyers told them that sooner or later a
> motorcycle accident victim's family was going sue them out of business. The
> only business they had was "safety helmets" and so they invented the BICYCLE
> helmet, not because there was any need for it, but in fact exactly the
> opposite - the number of death on bicycles is so small and the causes of
> death so massive that they would ALWAYS be able to argue in court that even
> if the helmet had worked 100% the victim would still be dead and so the fact
> that the helmet had little or no effect would be moot.
>
> The statistics are plain and easy to read - there are no reductions in
> serious or fatal head injuries that are attributable to helmets and that is
> the plain unvarnished truth.
>
> Suggesting that there would be "improvements" to helmets only demonstrates
> that you don't understand the underlying engineering principles.


Clear, cogent, and without the overlay of contempt that seems to come
so easily to some others.
Thanks!

Steve

>
>



--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>I even
>had Dr. Shively, the DEAN of helmets as past director of the Snell Institute
>admit at the transportation committee in Sacramento that no possible helmet
>can make a difference in any accident which would normally cause a fatality
>on a motorcycle.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what's above. Is that to say that somebody claims
that a motorcycle helmet cannot save somebody's life?
--
PeteCresswell
 
Quoting Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
>to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
>function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
>promote risky behavior.


This, specifically, is false. I've mentioned many times to Scharf that the
only effect of lights actually demonstrated by research is that of "any
lights" versus "no lights" (not, alas, "battery lights SMS sells^W likes"
versus "dynamo lights").

Based on the research of the UK's Transport Research Laboratory I am quite
confident that lights improve overall safety.

I also believe that brakes improve overall safety, although I have no
definite statistics (but there's nothing wrong with using supposition
where there _are_ no definite statistics); I think that riding at all with
no brakes is so dangerous that it simply is not possible to increase speed
in order to achieve a similar level of danger on a bike with brakes, and
incredibly difficult to maneuver so as to achieve that level of danger.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.
 
Quoting The Wogster <[email protected]>:
>But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is
>their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty
>dim).


[3 Watts "at 3V", eh? It's 6V and not pertinent.]
Well, there's one way you can look at it where they aren't; from behind
one with the business end pointed at the road. Focussing is everything; 4
times the power output doesn't help you when 4/5 the power output is going
to light up bats, earthworms, and stuff waaay off to the side you couldn't
hit if you tried.

Seriously. I didn't really believe it either until I tried one.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.
 
Quoting SMS <[email protected]>:
>Bob the Cow wrote:
>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are so
>>>unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true

>>That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised
>>access to computers.

>How can I get a job like that?


Now a cynic might observe that since you seem to have the time to sustain
discussions with Frank *and* Guy, you already have a job like that. Maybe
you aren't selling too many of the battery systems you so coincidentally
love these days?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.