|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
|
Ads |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: writes: On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: writes: On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote: Bill Z. wrote: Wolfgang Strobl writes: So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? Indeed. And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do anything to wriggle out of answering. More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory helmet laws False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much. Look for this in Google groups: "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced" |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: writes: On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: writes: Bill Z. wrote: Wolfgang Strobl writes: Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is probably just advertising, Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent 88% of head injuries. I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
On 7 Oct 2006 15:22:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: writes: On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote: Bill Z. wrote: Wolfgang Strobl writes: So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? Indeed. And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do anything to wriggle out of answering. More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory helmet laws False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or are you just being deceptive? Which is it: Stupid? or Deceptive? Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a helmet? |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
Bill Z. wrote: writes: Where I live there are "public service" announcements on the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent 88% of head injuries. I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. Bill's introduced an Interesting debate technique: saying "I'm ignorant, so you must be wrong." I have repeatedly seen such false helmet-promotion statements, in newspaper articles, in helmet promotional pamplets, in web pages, and in testimonial materials provided to legislators. You may choose to go through life ignoring all media, if you like. But the resulting ignorance does NOT work as proof. What you don't know about can certainly exist! - Frank Krygowski |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
Bill Z. wrote: writes: The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." snip Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Well, nobody who wants to promote helmet use worries about it, that's for sure! Your "helmet promotional material" is probably just advertising, :-) Wrong again, Bill. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing such a statement in an advertisement. No, that statement is used instead by people promoting helmets. These are people who feel a need to scare others into using the products they favor, even if it scares people away from bicycling. Admittedly, many of them are truly altruistic; they've bought the distortions fed to them by others, and feel it's their mission in life to save others from dangers. Even imaginary ones. and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. So, people you define as fools should not ride bikes? Is there anyone else your lordship would like to exclude? Personally, I believe in promoting cycling, not restricting it. This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people into wearing helmets. No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising is supposed to do. Spoken with spectacular ignorance. As explained in another post, the examples I gave did NOT come from advertising. So you are wrong yet again. If you had any shame at all, you'd simply stop posting. - Frank Krygowski |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
di wrote: How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the second choice you proposed. You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to learn about the issue. So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested, or don't read them if you're not. - Frank Krygowski |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
wrote: On 7 Oct 2006 15:22:20 -0700, wrote: wrote: On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: writes: On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote: Bill Z. wrote: Wolfgang Strobl writes: So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? Indeed. And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do anything to wriggle out of answering. More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory helmet laws False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or are you just being deceptive? Which is it: Stupid? or Deceptive? Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a helmet? I want you (and *only* you) to have a Mandatory Helmet LIFE; to be forced to wear a helmet 24/7/52, in everything you do from riding a bike to pulling your lil' pud. I wish this on you because you are an obnoxious, twisted ass who drags a helmet law into every discussion of helmets, even when no one else has even alluded to such a law. Other than that, I am anti-adult MHLs. As to child MHLs, I leave that to the parents in the affected areas. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience | Ozark Bicycle | Techniques | 5472 | August 13th 06 11:47 AM |
Helmet debate, helmet debate | SuzieB | Australia | 135 | March 30th 06 07:58 AM |
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet | gwhite | Techniques | 1015 | August 27th 05 08:36 AM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |