Helmet propaganda debunked

Bill Z. wrote, amusingly:


Can you read simpll English, Guy?

:-) Bill, did you do that on purpose?


As I said, she [Dr. Dorothy Robinson] has not posted one
word *on this newsgroup* in support of you.

Well, she's posted quite a lot on this newsgroup in support of the
facts and ideas that Guy (and I) are stating. For anyone interested in
facts and ideas, that would be the important issue.

BTW, I'm not particularly
impressed with her.

:-) But many, many intelligent people are. Back when some rational
discussion took place in this newsgroup - i.e. back before you insulted
most everyone away - she was generally regarded as the most
knowledgeable and astute poster. Certainly, her posts were the most
technically accurate, and the data she presented was the most unique
and best documented. Also, it was interesting to see her ideas posted
here _before_ they were published in referreed journals.

And I must say, I don't remember anyone claiming to be impressed with
you!

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:53:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Anyone following this and related threads will know that Krygowski
has a grudge going back 10 years,
Really? Looking at the way he interacts with other posters it looks
as if he is perfectly rational and you are the one frothing at the
mouth.
Oh come off it. The people who really frothed at the mouth were
Tom Kunich and Avery Burdett.
See what I mean? You're raking up ancient history again. Neither of
those two are even active in this thread.

You racked up Dorre Robinson, who is also ancient history, and if you
are talking about "frothing" on this thread, you are the number one
suspect.

Dorre? Ancient history? I don't think so. My last email from her
was less than a week ago. There is life beyond Usenet, you know. As
to frothing at the mouth - well, I think we'll let others make that
judgment. I think anyone who has read your posts at the head of this
thread will readily agree that moderation has not been one of your
leading characteristics!

I get bored after a few lines of nonsense from you and you complain
because I ignore the rest?

LOL! Amazing how your boredom kicks in just at the point where the
evidence starts!

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

More repetitive baby talk from Guy (and then he wonders why I
don't take him seriously.)

LOL! Your accusation might make sense if it wasn't obvious that the
taunt is a response to your ignoring stuff; therefore the taunt is not
invoked until your evasion has already started!

Thanks to a friend who emailed me the following link which perfectly
illustrates the Vandeman / Zaumen concept of "science":
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2005/nq050606.gif

Correction - "Vandeman / Guy concept of 'science'". Both of you
will cite something they've "read" without actually understanding
one word of it, and will then rant ad infinitum.

ROFLMAO! Damn but that's funny. This thread exists because you
trashed a study based on your prejudices regarding a person named in a
trade magazine article about it; you then went on to argue about
something which you clearly thought was the main thrust of the paper
but isn't, demonstrating that you hadn't even read the abstract
properly let alone the paper - and now you accuse others of not
understanding!!! Hilarious!

Thanks, Bill, you were starting to get dull, but that one really is
priceless!

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

At Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:04:37 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

[ob. Dorre]

I said it is immaterial
whether she posts here or not, the issue is whether she agrees. And I
know she does because, as I say, we correspond. Usenet is not the
world, Bill.

No it is not irrelevant since you made a claim that she agreed with
you (and the context was your continual personal attacks against me.)

LOL! Bill, in post you said that,
and I quote, "no professional statistician has agreed with you". I
cited Dr Dorothy Robinson, a professional statistician, who has agreed
with me. You did not specify context, and in any case she has posted
data and opinions on this group in the past which support my position.

So no, the context was not "personal attacks on you" (you are using
another of Vandeman's idiosyncratic definitions I note), but of you
falsely stating that no professional statisticians agree with me.

BTW, I'm not particularly impressed with her.
Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. As usual.
Not a fallacy a statement of fact

It may well be a fact that you are not impressed by Dorre - I guess
that she is not impressed by you, either! - but her credibility does
not rest on whether the world's leading helmet troll is impressed; she
has an academic reputation and a publication record.

(and hypocricial given your
previous post citing a cartoon, coupled with your baby talk.)

LOL! Why "tra la la la la, I'm not listening?" Because your response
to reasoned argument is to metaphorically put your hands over your
ears and hum! Just like the cartoon says! If that's babytalk, then
perhaps you should stop using babies' evasion techniques!

You of
course had committed the real logical fallacy - an attempt to
puff her up as an "authority" instead of talking about what she
actually posted (you can tell, because you prefaced here name
with "Dr." even though nobody does that when citing papers in
technical publications.)

LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.
She's cited in the journals, for example, three published papers in
the medical press on cycle helmets. Like I said, Dorre is a
professional statistician - her credibility does not rest on your
opinion!

Once again any attempt to steer the thread back to the issues is
ruthlessly excised by Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen's
patented evasion technique. As usual, nobody is fooled.

More baby talk, and hypocritical at that.

ROFL! Hypocritical, you say? well, well. So you think you can
completely ignore what I say, dismiss it as garbage, and that's
perfectly fine, but if I accuse you of not listening that's
hypocritical? You're a laugh a minute today!

I'll note, Guy, how
you snipped/ignored my request that you *quantify* your statements
by telling us what sample size you would consider adequate for
determining whether helmets are effective for preventing what you
call "serious" injuries (which you also do not define.) Saying
a country has "millions and millions" of people is not relevant
since it is the number of cycling accidents that cause serious
injuries that you have to consider.

ROFLMAO!!!! Zaumen accuses someone else of not addressing the issues!
My god, that's a killer! Quite aside from the reversed burden of
proof implied in your statement, the figures for serious injuries are
included in the papers I've cited!

In the previous discussion, years ago, I went through this in some
detail when the anti-helmet people tried to rant about "fatalities".

Stop it! Stop it! You're killing me!!!! Zaumen accusing other
people of "ranting"! Who started this thread with a diatribe against
someone tangentially mentioned in a report of a paper he hadn't read?
Zaumen! Who told others to go f**k themselves? Zaumen! Oh, Bill,
it's too much!

It really isn't hard to do. Why don't you surprise us and produce
an actual number instead of posting hundreds of lines of cut-and-paste
rants?

No! No! It's too much! Zaumen asks that I "surprise him" with
actual data!! As if it's /he/ who cites studies and /me/ who evades
them, rather than the other way round!

For the record, Bill, the figures are detailed in table 1, page 2 of
"Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law",
Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 - this is the
same data that Povey et. al. used, but they didn't publish the actual
numbers.

Oh, and my suggestion that you quantify the results was in a message
you responded to and was not burried in the middle of hundreds of
lines of text where it could be easily missed.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Priceless! Now it's supposed to be *my* fault that Bill
systematically refuses to address evidence! That really cracks me up!

Thank you so much, Bill - you have been getting really dull and
predictable lately, so this post has been an absolute treat. I'm sure
Frank will welcome the return of your usual entertainment value as
well.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:53:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Anyone following this and related threads will know that Krygowski
has a grudge going back 10 years,
Really? Looking at the way he interacts with other posters it looks
as if he is perfectly rational and you are the one frothing at the
mouth.
Oh come off it. The people who really frothed at the mouth were
Tom Kunich and Avery Burdett.
See what I mean? You're raking up ancient history again. Neither of
those two are even active in this thread.

You racked up Dorre Robinson, who is also ancient history, and if you
are talking about "frothing" on this thread, you are the number one
suspect.

Dorre? Ancient history? I don't think so. My last email from her
was less than a week ago.

We were talking about this newsgroup, not your personal email. Do
you think people read it over your shoulders the way you think you
can read what is in other's homes (as evident by your frequent
statements about what I do or do not read.)

I get bored after a few lines of nonsense from you and you complain
because I ignore the rest?

LOL! Amazing how your boredom kicks in just at the point where the
evidence starts!

What evidence? If you actually have any, I suggest you simply cut
all the garbage.

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

More repetitive baby talk from Guy (and then he wonders why I
don't take him seriously.)

LOL! Your accusation might make sense if it wasn't obvious that the
taunt is a response to your ignoring stuff; therefore the taunt is not
invoked until your evasion has already started!

What an infant Guy is.

Correction - "Vandeman / Guy concept of 'science'". Both of you
will cite something they've "read" without actually understanding
one word of it, and will then rant ad infinitum.

ROFLMAO! Damn but that's funny.

What I posted is also true, which makes it even funnier. And I'll
note that you still haven't posted the sample size you think is
required. Why is that?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

At Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:04:37 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

[ob. Dorre]

I said it is immaterial
whether she posts here or not, the issue is whether she agrees. And I
know she does because, as I say, we correspond. Usenet is not the
world, Bill.

No it is not irrelevant since you made a claim that she agreed with
you (and the context was your continual personal attacks against me.)

LOL! Bill, in post you said that,
and I quote, "no professional statistician has agreed with you". I
cited Dr Dorothy Robinson, a professional statistician, who has agreed
with me. You did not specify context, and in any case she has posted
data and opinions on this group in the past which support my position.

We were discussing this on a *usenet news group* and *you* brought up
""professional statisticians" in the first place.


It may well be a fact that you are not impressed by Dorre - I guess
that she is not impressed by you, either! - but her credibility does
not rest on whether the world's leading helmet troll is impressed; she
has an academic reputation and a publication record.

It rests, rather on her own use of infantile insults that she posted
for a month straight at one point, showing that she can be almost as
childish as you. And she does have a well-known axe to grind, as is
evident from her posts on this newsgroup and her 'ballistic' reaction
when I disagreed with her.

LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.

I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

She's cited in the journals, for example, three published papers in
the medical press on cycle helmets. Like I said, Dorre is a
professional statistician - her credibility does not rest on your
opinion!

So are Thompson and Rivera, whom you loudly disparage.
More baby talk, and hypocritical at that.


I'll note, Guy, how
you snipped/ignored my request that you *quantify* your statements
by telling us what sample size you would consider adequate for
determining whether helmets are effective for preventing what you
call "serious" injuries (which you also do not define.) Saying
a country has "millions and millions" of people is not relevant
since it is the number of cycling accidents that cause serious
injuries that you have to consider.

ROFLMAO!!!! Zaumen accuses someone else of not addressing the issues!

So, why don't you just produce the number instead of ranting.

rest snipped - Guy has no point, can't do the analysis, and knows it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

Bill Z. wrote, amusingly:


Can you read simpll English, Guy?

:-) Bill, did you do that on purpose?


As I said, she [Dr. Dorothy Robinson] has not posted one
word *on this newsgroup* in support of you.

Well, she's posted quite a lot on this newsgroup in support of the
facts and ideas that Guy (and I) are stating. For anyone interested in
facts and ideas, that would be the important issue.


As I said, Guy's posts appeared well after she dropped off this
newsgroup. She posted nothing backing up Guy's statements specifically,
and merely being "anti-helmet" is not good enough for you to make
that claim.

BTW, I'm not particularly
impressed with her.

:-) But many, many intelligent people are.

Typical Krygowski propoganda. "Intelligent people" are those who
agree with him and only those. Can't he post a single message without
resorting to spin?

silliness snipped

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.

I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

:-)

By that statement, you must be confessing that _you're_ not "so hot."
Right?

AT LAST! A tiny point on which we can agree! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


LOL! I have no need to "puff up" Dr Robinson, Bill - she has a PhD
and an academic record; she has taken the trouble to obtain and
analyse data and present it so others can challenge her findings.

I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

:-)

By that statement, you must be confessing that _you're_ not "so hot."
Right?

I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets and am
spending hardly any time on these posts. That's why my posts are
10 times shorter than Guy's.

AT LAST! A tiny point on which we can agree! ;-)

We can certainly agree that all you are capable of nothing but spin.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

:-)

By that statement, you must be confessing that _you're_ not "so hot."
Right?

I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets...

Oh, we knew that. As we've seen, you've demonstrated that you don't
even do "reading" on bicycle helmets.


... and am
spending hardly any time on these posts. That's why my posts are
10 times shorter than Guy's.

IOW, you post from a position of willful ignorance. Yet you post
endlessly.

And you unashamedly disparage people who actually work to learn about
the topic.

Such an odd little man!

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


I'm not impressed. If she's so hot, what's she doing wasting time
on bicylce helmets?

:-)

By that statement, you must be confessing that _you're_ not "so hot."
Right?

I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets...

Oh, we knew that. As we've seen, you've demonstrated that you don't
even do "reading" on bicycle helmets.

Staying "on message", Krygowski? How does it feel to be a Karl Rove
wannabe with 0.0001% of the skill?

... and am
spending hardly any time on these posts. That's why my posts are
10 times shorter than Guy's.

IOW, you post from a position of willful ignorance. Yet you post
endlessly.

No, Guy posts endlessly - I've been posting a fraction of what
he does and if he didn't post replies to basically *everything* I post,
this thread would have died out a long time ago.


Such an odd little man!

Projection.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB