|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:28:41 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: 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. Indeed. And the opinion of the professional statistician in question is in the public domain. Cycle helmet laws - facts, figures and consequences, Robinson DL. 1996. paper at Velo Australis (http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html) Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws: Robinson DL. 1996. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75 The efficacy of bicycle helmet laws: Robinson DL. 1996 Helmet laws and health: Robinson DL, Acton CH. 1998. Injury Prevention: 1998;4:170-172 Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law: Robinson DL. 2001. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 Costs and benefits of the New Zealand helmet laws http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2019.pdf Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists: review and Australian data: Robinson DL. 2004. Health Promotion Journal of Australia So: * Dorre is a professional statistician * Dorre agrees with me (or rather, I agree with her) * Dorre's opinion is a matter of record and easily accessible Oh, and: * You lose :-) 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. ROFLMAO!!!!! Bill, you absolutely take the prize for hubris! Dorre lost patience with you? I can't pretend to be in the least surprised! She posted fact, you reacted like a Victorian bishop confronted by a dinosaur skeleton! 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? ROFLMAO! Oh the irony! Of course, Bill, it's only appropriate to "waste time" on bicycle helmets when you are engaged in uncritical zealotry, like the Puget Sound team, right? You crack me up with this one! 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. Indeed. And I am perfectly happy to discuss the merits of either, based on the data they present. For example, look at tables 3 and 4 in the 1989 Seattle study and see if you notice anything unusual about the comparison between columns I-II and V-VIII which might inform the comparisons made between them. Particularly with respect to the last two blocks of data in Table 3. TR&T clearly think this comparison is still robust, as it is one of the studies they included in their "independent" review for the Cochrane library, and they didn't note any criticisms in that review. What do *you* think? Oh, but wait - you haven't read that study have you? I can infer that from the fact that it describes as confounding the factors you refused to accept were legitimately described as such. Or is it that you simply don't accept its conclusions? If so, which study do you believe paints a fair picture of the efficacy of helmets against serious injury? ROFLMAO!!!! Zaumen accuses someone else of not addressing the issues! So, why don't you just produce the number instead of ranting. I did: 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 rest snipped - Guy has no point, can't do the analysis, and knows it. Nothing I can say will add to the comedic impact of your comment above! 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 |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:53:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: 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. 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 |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:53:58 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: I'm not wasting my time doing "research" on bicycle helmets This much is obvious! 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 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:52:53 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: 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. LOL! The thread only exists in the first place because you made a bogus assertion about a study you hadn't read based on your prejudices about someone named in a news report you later admitted you hadn't read properly! Sure, if I'd just let your misinformation stand the thread would have died out long ago. But I don't feel inclined to! Apparently it is also my fault that data takes up more space than fact-free assertion and evasion. Another belly-laugh from Bill! This is turning out to be an entertaining thread at last :-) 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 |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:52:53 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: 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. LOL! The thread only exists in the first place because you made a bogus assertion about a study you hadn't read based on your prejudices about someone named in a news report you later admitted you hadn't read properly! Sure, if I'd just let your misinformation stand the thread would have died out long ago. But I don't feel inclined to! No, this thread only exists because you keep ranting and raving. Apparently it is also my fault that data takes up more space than fact-free assertion and evasion. Another belly-laugh from Bill! This is turning out to be an entertaining thread at last :-) What data? Your posts are mostly childish personal attacks. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:23:28 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: 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. Were you? I was talking about real life. Dorre is active and still writing and publishing on this issue. Anyone who is actively interested in helmet research will be well aware of this. She is not writing anything here. I really don't give a damn what she writes - I've pretty much written her off as yet another ideologue on this issue. LOL! You think I need to look over your shoulder to know you haven't read something when your comments about it display ignorance of its contents? Marvellous! This thread is getting some real comedy at l;ast! Keep it up :-) Staying "on message" with your lies? You guys claim that even when I quote something verbatim. Bwuhahahahahaa! The words of an infant. And he wonders why I don't take him seriously. Oh, and you still have not posted the number I requested - what sample size you think might be adequate to determine if helmets do or do not prevent what you call "serious injuries". I'm still waiting. If you posted it somewhere in your gobs of text, and the other messages I'll flush today, I suggest you reply with a very short post containing just this number. Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
Bill Z. wrote: Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful. No, I must disagree. I've read almost all of your posts. Of course, I was ultimately disappointed. But I did try! ;-) - Frank Krygowski |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet propaganda debunked
At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:10:39 GMT, message
was posted by (Bill Z.), including some, all or none of the following: We were talking about this newsgroup, not your personal email. Were you? I was talking about real life. Dorre is active and still writing and publishing on this issue. Anyone who is actively interested in helmet research will be well aware of this. She is not writing anything here. I really don't give a damn what she writes - I've pretty much written her off as yet another ideologue on this issue. LOL! Is research only valid if published here, now? That's going to narrow things down even more than your "Bay Area" criterion! But of course you've written Dorre off, Bill - she is knowledgeable, has data and disagrees with you! How could it be any other way? LOL! You think I need to look over your shoulder to know you haven't read something when your comments about it display ignorance of its contents? Marvellous! This thread is getting some real comedy at last! Keep it up :-) Staying "on message" with your lies? You guys claim that even when I quote something verbatim. ROFL! This thread is about a study in AAP - you assert that it is about one thing, actually it is about another. Not difficult to work out whether you've read it or not! Bwuhahahahahaa! The words of an infant. And he wonders why I don't take him seriously. Oh, I know why you evade what I write, Bill - for the same reason you evade what any other poster who cites anything other than uncritical zealotry. Don't worry, nobody is in any doubt about your reasons. Oh, and you still have not posted the number I requested Yes I have, I gave a citation. 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 Nobody is going to read many hundreds of lines of mindless, infantile ranting in the hope of finding something meaningful. LOL! Keep it up, you've nearly got yourself fooled! Nobody else, 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Helmet Advice | DDEckerslyke | Social Issues | 17 | September 2nd 03 11:10 PM |