1. Any post having to do with whether helmets are good or bad,
worthwhile or useless, whether they save lives or are a waste of money,
etc., etc., is essentially religious in nature, and therefore not subject
to rational argument.

2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the
utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally
more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their
own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a
consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly
"logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext.

3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you
ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless,
until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for
your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not. (Well, people do change
their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically
possible, but at a minimum, people of different faiths all believe in a
God of _some_ kind. The helmet wars are more like the believers against
the atheists.)

Conclusion: All pro- or con- helmet posts, as well as those supposedly
soliciting advice about helmets ("Are helmets worth it?" etc., etc., are,
ipso facto, trolls, i.e., invitations to argue -- if not with the poster,
then with each other. A post with a subject line such as "New helmet
research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you
spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!)

Have fun debating this proposition.

AGM