Helmet propaganda debunked

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I
had read it.


Then why did you say in your original post:

"...and I presume that [ Avery Burdett ]is the major source the author
used."

I was revering to the reporter (the author of the newspaper article),
not the author of the paper the reporter mentioned.

THere are two authors involved. Surely you can tell from context
which one I was talking about. At least, any reasonably intelligent
reader should be able to handle that.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:54:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Then why did you say in your original post:
"...and I presume that [ Avery Burdett ]is the major source the author
used."

I was revering to the reporter (the author of the newspaper article),
not the author of the paper the reporter mentioned.

No you were not, you were referring to the person who merely alerted
the author of the article to the existence of the paper. As you would
know, if you had bothered to read the article before rubbishing it.

THere are two authors involved. Surely you can tell from context
which one I was talking about. At least, any reasonably intelligent
reader should be able to handle that.

Any reasonably intelligent reader would not have made the mistake of
rubbishing a document without reading it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:46:44 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Again.

Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy?

The only time I use cut and paste is when it is necessary to get the
message across. I think by this time it is perfectly clear that (a)
you have not read Carlton's article; (b) you have not read the paper
it was discussing; (c) your overweening arrogance will now prevent you
from doing either of these, presumably on the grounds that caving in
to pressure by actually reading the documents you are rubbishing shows
some kind of weakness.

I'll flush the rest of your posts today.

Translation: "Tra la la la, I'm not listening".

"You are obviously trolling
to restart an argument from last summer.

LOL!
Who started this argument? Zaumen.
Who rubbished an article without actually reading it? Zaumen.
Who is the one flinging accusations around? Zaumen.
Who is the one raking up ancient history a vain attempt to justify his
refusal to read an article about a report he might not like? Zaumen.
Who is the troll? Zaumen.

Is it getting to be the
season again or something for you to go on yet another of your
infantile helmet rants? Or are you getting tired of arguing with
Mike Vandeman and are looking for another person to bother? Even
Vandeman is an improvement over you.

I wonder who you think you're fooling?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Bill Z. wrote:

If you want to see "abusive" look up the ant-helmet group's posts.

Helmets for ants, eh? Good idea.

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something that
folds, buy a deckchair.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:49:56 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

If you want to see "abusive" look up the ant-helmet group's posts.

If you want to see "delusional" look up the zealots' posts
characterising sceptics as anti-helmet.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Many would say that his "bias" is correct; he certainly has a powerful
set
of facts and studies to support him.

He doesn't. The guy quite frankly doesn't know what he is talking about.
I suspect you don't either. It's all been covered before. Just check
the archives over the past 10 or 15 years.


Bill, I note that you edited out all the following:

---quote begins---

He does not, I notice, suggest (as you appear to do) that people who might
have an interest in the subject avoid information which

a) has a provenance of impeccable scientific credence; and
b) does not agree with your own point of view (sometimes short-termed as
"bias").


and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm
or
deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would
be a
case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see.

I didn't jump to any conclusions about the paper. I made a statement
about a reporter's article.

But you made your disparaging statement without reading the article, or the
source on which it was based - you just saw the name of someone with whom
you claim to disagree, and because of that you make your conclusion that the
article was not worth reading. Is that not an unsupportable jump?

Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more
important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends
out.

Is this another case of not seeing what you don't wish to see?

And why do you feel the need to buttress your arguments with name-calling -
surely if you believe what you say has merit this is not necessary!

---quote ends---

Please, is this a case of you not having any argument with the part you
snipped, or a case of not seeing what you don't wish to see?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:54:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Then why did you say in your original post:
"...and I presume that [ Avery Burdett ]is the major source the author
used."

I was revering to the reporter (the author of the newspaper article),
not the author of the paper the reporter mentioned.

No you were not, you were referring to the person who merely alerted
the author of the article to the existence of the paper. As you would
know, if you had bothered to read the article before rubbishing it.

Oh come off it. He mentioned Burdett prominently enough that Burdett
was obviously a significant source. If you had bothered to read the
post you first responded to, you'd know that - it was clearly stated.

Any reasonably intelligent reader would not have made the mistake of
rubbishing a document without reading it.

Looking in a mirror, Guy?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:46:44 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Again.

Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy?

The only time I use cut and paste is when it is necessary to get the
message across. f your posts today.

In your case it is often - cut and paste is pretty much all I see
from you.


Translation: "Tra la la la, I'm not listening".

"You are obviously trolling
to restart an argument from last summer.

LOL!

Yep, you are acting like your traditional infantile self.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Bill, I note that you edited out all the following:

---quote begins---

He does not, I notice, suggest (as you appear to do) that people who might
have an interest in the subject avoid information which

a) has a provenance of impeccable scientific credence; and
b) does not agree with your own point of view (sometimes short-termed as
"bias").

But you made your disparaging statement without reading the article, or the
source on which it was based - you just saw the name of someone with whom
you claim to disagree, and because of that you make your conclusion that the
article was not worth reading. Is that not an unsupportable jump?

I guess you are yet another of these morons. I obviously read the
article. How else would I have known that he quoted Burdett (who has
a well-known bias on this subject as even a cursory glance of his
postings on rec.bicycles.soc will show). Go back and read the first
few posts *very* carefully. You'll see Burdett not mentioned until I
pointed it out, by reading the article that you just claimed I hadn't
bothered to read.

It looks to me like the typical tactics of the anti-helmet people: lie,
lie, and lie.

everything else snipped - you aren't worth much time.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:31:33 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I was revering to the reporter (the author of the newspaper article),
not the author of the paper the reporter mentioned.

No you were not, you were referring to the person who merely alerted
the author of the article to the existence of the paper. As you would
know, if you had bothered to read the article before rubbishing it.

Oh come off it. He mentioned Burdett prominently enough that Burdett
was obviously a significant source. If you had bothered to read the
post you first responded to, you'd know that - it was clearly stated.

Avery was *not* the author of the article - and this is obvious if you
read it. You rubbished the article without reading it.

Any reasonably intelligent reader would not have made the mistake of
rubbishing a document without reading it.

Looking in a mirror, Guy?

Oh, good question. Better review the available facts:

Have you read the article under discussion?
Chapman: Yes.
Zaumen: No.

Have you read the paper it is discussing?
Chapman: Yes.
Zaumen: Refuses to say, but no evidence of having done so.

Have you been rubbishing the article based on personal prejudice about
someone you mistakenly identified as the author?
Chapman: No
Zaumen: Yes.

So, that'll be a "no" on the mirror question, then.

Do feel free to come back when you have read enough to make some
worthwhile contribution. The article is available online from
Accident Analysis and Prevention's website, at cost, or if you email
the author he might send you a copy. As long as he thinks you have a
genuine interest.

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