Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On 10 Aug 2006 05:50:13 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 03:47:48 -0700, wrote:

And I have the feeling you're as queer as a $3 bill. Why else would you
keep asking me for a picture?

If I was gay I wouldn't be embarrassed to say so -- but I'm not.

Hmmm....you're an obsessive, post humping prick but you won't admit it.
Why should I believe you'd be more honest about your sexual
preferences?

You can call me gay or think that I'm gay -- it's not an insult to me.
I have plenty of gay friends and don't think being gay is anything to
be embarrassed about. Calling me gay or suggesting I'm gay is just an
error on your part and I won't spend any more energy disputing it.

More
importantly, I'm pretty sure you're not physically attractive


And this is based on what.......your psychic powers?? LOL!!

Prove me wrong with a picture.

JT


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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 05:50:13 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 03:47:48 -0700, wrote:

And I have the feeling you're as queer as a $3 bill. Why else would you
keep asking me for a picture?

If I was gay I wouldn't be embarrassed to say so -- but I'm not.

Hmmm....you're an obsessive, post humping prick but you won't admit it.
Why should I believe you'd be more honest about your sexual
preferences?

You can call me gay or think that I'm gay -- it's not an insult to me.
I have plenty of gay friends and don't think being gay is anything to
be embarrassed about. Calling me gay or suggesting I'm gay is just an
error on your part and I won't spend any more energy disputing it.


So you just stalk men on the internet, ask for their picture and a date
to meet?


More
importantly, I'm pretty sure you're not physically attractive


And this is based on what.......your psychic powers?? LOL!!

Prove me wrong with a picture.


Not a chance, assh**e. Prove your own premise.

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

You are such a slug witted moron! :-)

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, wrote:

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

What site are you talking about?



Gawd! What are you basing your position on?

(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, wrote:

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

What site are you talking about?

JT


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

On 10 Aug 2006 16:21:21 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, wrote:

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

What site are you talking about?


Gawd! What are you basing your position on?

(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought perhaps you
meant the website www.ozarkbicycleservice.com but don't see anything
there other than text.

What are you talking about? What/which earlier advice?

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 16:21:21 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, wrote:

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

What site are you talking about?


Gawd! What are you basing your position on?

(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought perhaps you
meant the website www.ozarkbicycleservice.com but don't see anything
there other than text.

What are you talking about? What/which earlier advice?



Every time I do not want to believe you are so profoundly stupid, you
prove me wromg.

Good Gawd, you are a waste of time. No mas!

"H M Leary" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Aeek wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
scenarios where they might well help.

Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
for mandatory cycling glasses?
I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
personal sample!

Ah Crockey, Mate.

Maybe you should take some riding lessons and learn how to stay upright!

Maybe it was the corks dangling off strings on the Aussie version of the
helmet that caused a distraction ;-)

Paul
(PS New Zealanders also say Crikey - which is what I'm sure you meant to
write, unless you were referring to a throat ailment)

On 10 Aug 2006 17:09:18 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 16:21:21 -0700, wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, wrote:

(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)

What site are you talking about?


Gawd! What are you basing your position on?

(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought perhaps you
meant the website www.ozarkbicycleservice.com but don't see anything
there other than text.

What are you talking about? What/which earlier advice?

Every time I do not want to believe you are so profoundly stupid, you
prove me wromg.


Please just give me the URL of the site you are talking about and I'll
take a look.

JT

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:15:53 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
said in
:

The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
cycling newsgroup.

IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
judgment.

No, references to the evidence caused me to question my own
prejudices. Rightly, as it turns out.

The fact that you consider your judgment to be more reliable than
formal evidence has already been established. I lack your
self-confidence.

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

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:30:48 -0700, SMS
said in :

LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

That would be the 85% figure again,. of course.

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