Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

wrote in message
ups.com...


I must be one, because anyone who wears a helmet (as I do, almost
always) is a pro-helmet zealot according to jtaylor. Correct? Or not?

Where exactly does jtaylor say that?

Oh, sorry, you're a helmet zealot. You don't need facts.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:16 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


"Qualified"? "Explain it"?? I'm not "qualified" to "explain" how
fire works (or seat belts or computers or...heck, radio and TV),
but I know A) that they do work; B) how to use them; and C) that
using them is beneficial to me, and therefore a smart thing to do
(for me).

You think the "for me" thing covers it, huh? What about medecine?
What about complex systems? Just because something happens to you
doesn't mean you necessarily understand it. You may, but it's
possible your understanding is flawed.

That's exactly right. If someone takes a medication to, say, regulate his
or her heart rate, do they have to be "qualified" to "explain" how it works?
Or are they simply grateful that it does and take it every day?

So what does a helmet working "for you" mean? Can you define what
the "working" is? And, if so, how do you know it works?

I've answered that enough times for you to know what I have to say on the
matter. Something tells me you're only asking yet again to be a smart-ass
(nicer term than prick -- even though it /can/ mean only a thorn).

The fact that you'd demand to know if a bike rider is /qualified/ to
/explain/ how his or her helmet works after /experiencing/ it doing
so speaks volumes. About YOU.

Yes it does say a lot about me. It says that I'm naturally skeptical
and aware that I extremely ignornant about many many things. And I'm
dismayed at many people who think they know things that they do not.
I'm dismayed at people who are at least as ignorant as I am who
attempt to speak from authority.

The appeals to authority in these threads have all come from the AHZ side of
the debate. "Qualifications", "literature", "statistical studies", etc.
Talk about "attempt(s) to speak from authority" (your term)!

Would you demand that cancer patients be "qualified" to "explain" how CHEMO
works? Do participants in a film discussion group need to be "qualified" to
"explain" why a movie was good or sucked?

Try mixing in just a little lightness and joy to your life. It's not all
stodgy black & white issues you know.

Burt wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


I must be one, because anyone who wears a helmet (as I do, almost
always) is a pro-helmet zealot according to jtaylor. Correct? Or not?

Where exactly does jtaylor say that?

Oh, sorry, you're a helmet zealot. You don't need facts.

POTM! ROTFL

Burt wrote:
"jtaylor" wrote in message
net.ca...

Pro-helmet-zealots will do anything they can to avoid answering this
question. The only answer that could be given exposes their
espousal of helmets as a protective measure for the fallacy it is.

You can expect that the question will be called ridiculous, that it
will be
distorted in an effort to divert the thread, that he will claim it is
irrelevant, that he cannot answer it, that he has already answered
it, that
he will insult you; in short, that he will do _anything_ except
answer it.

Thanks j. A succinct summation of the zealots position. I will
unashamedely steal parts of it, slightly rephrased to be able to
disguise the plagarism.

You two must be the same person. Same frequent careless typos; same
sub-grade-school level grammar. Where's Ravin' to sleuth this?!? LOL

Bill Sornson wrote:
Burt wrote:
"jtaylor" wrote in message
net.ca...

Pro-helmet-zealots will do anything they can to avoid answering this
question. The only answer that could be given exposes their
espousal of helmets as a protective measure for the fallacy it is.

You can expect that the question will be called ridiculous, that it
will be
distorted in an effort to divert the thread, that he will claim it is
irrelevant, that he cannot answer it, that he has already answered
it, that
he will insult you; in short, that he will do _anything_ except
answer it.

Thanks j. A succinct summation of the zealots position. I will
unashamedely steal parts of it, slightly rephrased to be able to
disguise the plagarism.

You two must be the same person. Same frequent careless typos; same
sub-grade-school level grammar. Where's Ravin' to sleuth this?!? LOL

Too busy pulling Burt's strings?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:26:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:16 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


"Qualified"? "Explain it"?? I'm not "qualified" to "explain" how
fire works (or seat belts or computers or...heck, radio and TV),
but I know A) that they do work; B) how to use them; and C) that
using them is beneficial to me, and therefore a smart thing to do
(for me).

You think the "for me" thing covers it, huh? What about medecine?
What about complex systems? Just because something happens to you
doesn't mean you necessarily understand it. You may, but it's
possible your understanding is flawed.

That's exactly right. If someone takes a medication to, say, regulate his
or her heart rate, do they have to be "qualified" to "explain" how it works?
Or are they simply grateful that it does and take it every day?

If someone is given a placebo and they happen to get better, or they
happen to get better for another reason than the medecine, should we
listen to them?

I'm not saying we should immediately discount it, but we have to ask
"How do they know?" And if there is other, more objective evidence
that runs counter to the individual's obersvation, that has to be
given more weight. This is particulary true for people giving
testimonies after an emotional event, such as a crash in which their
helmet is destroyed.

JT


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

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:26:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
what does a helmet working "for you" mean? Can you define what
the "working" is? And, if so, how do you know it works?

I've answered that enough times for you to know what I have to say on the
matter. Something tells me you're only asking yet again to be a smart-ass
(nicer term than prick -- even though it /can/ mean only a thorn).

What are you afraid of in answering those questions about what a
helmet working means? In the last few days you have spent time
writing at least five refusals to answer the question.

I think either you either
- don't know how to define the helment working,
or
- you are afraid or know that the definition you provide will be very
weak and thus laughable
or
- you have a stronger definition that is easily discredited.

Anyway, I've asked again. Ignore this or refuse to answer if you
want. At the least, how about posting a link to one of the "enough"
times you have answered the question?

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:26:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:16 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:


"Qualified"? "Explain it"?? I'm not "qualified" to "explain" how
fire works (or seat belts or computers or...heck, radio and TV),
but I know A) that they do work; B) how to use them; and C) that
using them is beneficial to me, and therefore a smart thing to do
(for me).

You think the "for me" thing covers it, huh? What about medecine?
What about complex systems? Just because something happens to you
doesn't mean you necessarily understand it. You may, but it's
possible your understanding is flawed.

That's exactly right. If someone takes a medication to, say,
regulate his or her heart rate, do they have to be "qualified" to
"explain" how it works? Or are they simply grateful that it does and
take it every day?

If someone is given a placebo and they happen to get better, or they
happen to get better for another reason than the medecine, should we
listen to them?

What do you mean, "listen to them"? The only people passing themselves off
as (self proclaimed) experts around here at the anti-liddites.

I'm not saying we should immediately discount it, but we have to ask
"How do they know?" And if there is other, more objective evidence
that runs counter to the individual's obersvation, that has to be
given more weight. This is particulary true for people giving
testimonies after an emotional event, such as a crash in which their
helmet is destroyed.

I don't disagree with that. It gets back to my seat belt example. If one
has literally /felt/ it work -- that is, do what it's designed to do
(restrain a person against forces that otherwise would overcome him or
her) -- then a bunch of Usenet blowhards pontificating that they aren't
effective (or worse, are DANGEROUS!!!) won't sway his or her opinion.

The ones on here trying to /affect/ or /change/ opinions, choices and
behaviors are the ANTI-helmet crusaders. The pro-lid people have, with few
exceptions, said "do whatever you want".

Sorno

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:26:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
what does a helmet working "for you" mean? Can you define what
the "working" is? And, if so, how do you know it works?

I've answered that enough times for you to know what I have to say
on the matter. Something tells me you're only asking yet again to
be a smart-ass (nicer term than prick -- even though it /can/ mean
only a thorn).

What are you afraid of in answering those questions about what a
helmet working means? In the last few days you have spent time
writing at least five refusals to answer the question.

I think either you either
- don't know how to define the helment working,
or
- you are afraid or know that the definition you provide will be very
weak and thus laughable
or
- you have a stronger definition that is easily discredited.

Anyway, I've asked again. Ignore this or refuse to answer if you
want. At the least, how about posting a link to one of the "enough"
times you have answered the question?

For someone who keeps a file copy of my every post recorded on his hard
drive, you seem strangely unable to retrieve my various answers to that
question over the last, say, two weeks. (Not to mention the two MONTHS
before that.)

The only thing more disingenuous was the person who tried to strawman it
(working) into "life-saving measure".

(If you really need a hint, perhaps the phrase "prevent or lessen the
severity of injury" will jog your memory. As much as you hump my posts --
in flurries, thank God, not constantly -- I'd think you'd remember it well.)

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:45:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

I don't disagree with that. It gets back to my seat belt example.
If one has literally /felt/ it work -- that is, do what it's
designed to do (restrain a person against forces that otherwise
would overcome him or her) -- then a bunch of Usenet blowhards
pontificating that they aren't effective (or worse, are
DANGEROUS!!!) won't sway his or her opinion.

How can you feel a helmet working? It doesn't make any sense.
Accidents happen fast, and to judge the feeling of the helmet
compressing or something seems impossible.

God gave us five senses for a reason. HTH