Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Dave Vandervies wrote:
In article ,
Bill Sornson wrote:

I was merely commenting on your attributing words/arguments to
others that don't exist. Twice. (Granted, first case -- which you
snipped -- was more egregious.)

Hmm. That does appear to be what I was doing. (Though I still
think that replacing the first one with a valid representation of the
position I was attempting to represent doesn't affect the point I was
making/illustrating, and would carry the additional bonus of removing
the opportunity for the second. I just chose particularly bad
examples to support it.)

And then when I got called on it I responded in a way that I and many
others object to (quite legitimately) when people we disagree with try
to do it.

I really need to go on a long bike ride instead of arguing on usenet,
but the bike shop hasn't finished fixing my brakes yet, and the
weather 'round here sucks this weekend anyways. But I definitely
need to find something to do where being grumpy won't lead to
embarassing myself in public.
If you[1] catch me posting again before the end of the weekend, beat
me over the head with a crushed helmet or some other suitable
implement.

Just wear your helmet.

{pause}

:-P

In article ,
"Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation
seem

There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind.

That's funny, I could have sworn it's been on my computer screen!

Then you can characterize a member by describing his
values, goals, methods, knowledge-base, tools, attitude,
and theses; and cite two or more writings that support
your thesis.

--
Michael Press

Dave Vandervies wrote:
In article ,
Steven Bornfeld wrote:



(plonk)

--
Cut the nonsense to reply

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:


I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.


I won't make that effort.

I know you won't--that's my point.

Right. They're not needed. Making them "more effective" is a waste of
time. Surely that's simple enough to understand.


As I said in my previous post: To make them
more effective, make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
and adjustment - maybe solid plastic. [And as I said, these would make helmets only marginally more protective, but significantly more unpleasant.]


You don't know (and CANNOT know) that that is the only way to do this.

:-) Oh, I'm sure a non-engineer can tell a licensed mechanical
engineer what he knows about mechanical design!

What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.

You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:

wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:


I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.


I won't make that effort.

I know you won't--that's my point.


Right. They're not needed. Making them "more effective" is a waste of
time. Surely that's simple enough to understand.


As I said in my previous post: To make them

more effective, make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
and adjustment - maybe solid plastic. [And as I said, these would make helmets only marginally more protective, but significantly more unpleasant.]


You don't know (and CANNOT know) that that is the only way to do this.


:-) Oh, I'm sure a non-engineer can tell a licensed mechanical
engineer what he knows about mechanical design!

What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.

You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.

- Frank Krygowski

Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.

Steve



--
Cut the nonsense to reply

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
wrote:


What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.

You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.

Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.

Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!

Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
not even close.

But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
curious whether your group fits the national profile.

You're aware, I'm sure, that cycling is less than 1% of the serious
head injury problem in the US. Right?

I sometimes suspect that bike helmet fanatics think the _other_ 99% are
a waste of time!

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I submit that on or about Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:19:49 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:


So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
"woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...e=source&hl=en


Very creative snipping.


Nearly as creative as yours - once again you snipped the call for
evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging

The evidence is in the same places that I've pointed to on numerous
occasions. I'm sure you're smart enough to look at the previous threads
on the subject and find it.

Not that any amount of evidence has ever convinced you of anything in
the past.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:50:57 GMT, SMS
wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I submit that on or about Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:19:49 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
"woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...e=source&hl=en

Very creative snipping.

Nearly as creative as yours - once again you snipped the call for
evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging

The evidence is in the same places that I've pointed to on numerous
occasions. I'm sure you're smart enough to look at the previous threads
on the subject and find it.

Not that any amount of evidence has ever convinced you of anything in
the past.

Dear Steven,

Your web site (a single page) also claims that you have a
long list of studies:

"I have a long list of links to helmet studies . . ."

http://bicyclehelmets.info/

That tiny site has been "under construction" since
12-26-2004, but there isn't a single link to any helmet
study.

Why not give us the links that you claim to have?

If you need an example to show you how it's done, just have
a look at Guy's site:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/.../cycle_helmets

Look at all those easy-to-click-on links to details and
other sites about the helmet issue!

Notice that Guy provides a link to a list of over 200
helmet-related studies not available on the web:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...e?OpenDocument

There's even a review of your site, which points out that
you claimed months ago to have lots of studies, but haven't
revealed a single one yet:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...f?OpenDocument

Why are the studies that you keep claiming support your
position such a secret?

Carl Fogel

I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:50:57 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

once again you snipped the call for
evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging

The evidence is in the same places that I've pointed to on numerous
occasions. I'm sure you're smart enough to look at the previous threads
on the subject and find it.

I was a participant in those threads. My recollection is that you
reacted to the repeated calls for evidence by killfiling me and Frank.
I've reviewed at least one of those threads, and can't find any
externally verifiable evidence from you to back your assertions.

Since I can neither remember or find the evidence you claim you
posted, I am sure it will be no problem for you to post it again.

Not that any amount of evidence has ever convinced you of anything in
the past.

Once again you falsely accuse others of your own worst faults.
Specifically in the case of helmets, I used to be an enthusiastic
helmet promoter until I discovered the contradictory and confusing
nature of the evidence. So that's one example where the evidence
convinced me.

As ever, your zealotry causes you to see all agnostics as atheists.

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

Steven Bornfeld wrote:

Ad hom noted. I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more
effective, rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head
injury fatalities.

Huh? Where did they bury the survivors of these fatalities?