- wrote:

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.

You appear to have described JPoulos and BZaumen, but most everybody
else here is open to discussion of the facts. You can't, however, make
false claims as to the facts without getting stomped on by the ones who
did their homework and know better.



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,

I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.

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.

Now who is trolling?

Mitch.