published helmet research - not troll

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

You refused to countenance the idea that the Scuffham study might be flawed
besed on who posted the data, but accepted without question /from the same
source/ the ironic notion that New Zealand had repealed its helmet laws, a
fantastical suggestion which could be discounted with even the most cursory
investigation.

You have added nothing to the debate for some weeks, and I regret to say
that you have provoked me to immoderate language when the wise response
would have been to laugh and point, or maybe have some sympathy for the
village idiot.

Bill, I have nothing further to say to you, unless you decide to reverse all
previous practice and discuss matters of substance. I am confident you will
not do so, because you have worked so very hard in the past to avoid the
same.

I have no doubt that you will reply in your usual vein, please do so secure
in the knowledge that (a) you are wrong and (b) I will reply only if you
raise matters of substance.


To the group(s), mea culpa. I am indebted to Roger for pointing out to me
that Zaumen's standards of proof regarding helmets are akin to the Pope
asking Richard Dawkins to disprove the existence of God solely by reference
to Biblical authority. Zaumen is a True Believer and not susceptible to
rational debate. It has been tried by many, and he has assiduously steered
debate away from anything whihc might challenge his cherished beliefs.

Or maybe he is more like Monty Python's Black Knight: cut off both arms and
both legs and he still thinks he's winning the fight; a figure of ridicule
rather than conviction. I'll let the group(s) decide.

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 Washington
University

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

You refused to countenance the idea that the Scuffham study might be
flawed besed on who posted the data, but accepted without question
/from the same source/ the ironic notion that New Zealand had
repealed its helmet laws, a fantastical suggestion which could be
discounted with even the most cursory investigation.


Sigh. Actually, I just figured it was new information that somehow
slipped out.

And, as usual, you figured there was no need to actually _read_ any "new
information" on the subject.

That, coupled with your usual inability to recognize a joke, makes this
issue classic Zaumen.

Nice one, Bill! ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:26:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote in message :

That, coupled with your usual inability to recognize a joke, makes this
issue classic Zaumen.

Application of the Z transform introduces an imaginary component ;-)

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 Washington University

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

You refused to countenance the idea that the Scuffham study might be
flawed besed on who posted the data, but accepted without question
/from the same source/ the ironic notion that New Zealand had
repealed its helmet laws, a fantastical suggestion which could be
discounted with even the most cursory investigation.
Sigh. Actually, I just figured it was new information that somehow
slipped out.

And, as usual, you figured there was no need to actually _read_ any
"new information" on the subject.

Let's see. Somoene posts a claim that New Zealand repealed its
helmet law, in a dicussions where that is incidental to what we
were talking about, I point out that the guy was inconsistent, and
he claims he was being sarcastic.

Then you blame me fo rnot spending some time checking each and
every statement you people post Of course, if you do that,
you'll spend hours crosschecking each and every thing you guys
post. Maybe that's the idea - what you guys *really* want is
to not have anyone point out how far out to lunch you guys are.

You are, of course, trying to stay "on message" with your usual
lies. Working for the Bush campaign, I presume? I don't know
if you are a Republican, but you sure act like one.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:26:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote in message :

That, coupled with your usual inability to recognize a joke, makes this
issue classic Zaumen.

Application of the Z transform introduces an imaginary component ;-)

Oh ... so to avoid technically lying by responding to me, Guy is
using the ploy of responding to Krygowski responding to me. How
childish of them both.

Oh, and Krygowski lied about a "joke." There was none - Guy was
simply making something up to cover up his weak argument.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

You refused to countenance the idea that the Scuffham study might be
flawed besed on who posted the data, but accepted without question
/from the same source/ the ironic notion that New Zealand had
repealed its helmet laws, a fantastical suggestion which could be
discounted with even the most cursory investigation.

Sigh. Actually, I just figured it was new information that somehow
slipped out.

And, as usual, you figured there was no need to actually _read_ any
"new information" on the subject.


Let's see. Somoene posts a claim that New Zealand repealed its
helmet law, in a dicussions where that is incidental to what we
were talking about, I point out that the guy was inconsistent, and
he claims he was being sarcastic.

Then you blame me fo rnot spending some time checking each and
every statement you people post

Not at all. I was blaming you for consistently refusing to read new
information on this subject! You've consistently gleaned little bits
from various sources, never spent much time actually learning, and
endlessly argued your uninformed nonsense.

In this case, you did this with an offhand sarcastic remark, and
enthusiastically accepted it because you thought it proved your point.
That hilariously showed the depth of your knowledge!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:37:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote in message :

In this case, you did this with an offhand sarcastic remark, and
enthusiastically accepted it because you thought it proved your point.
That hilariously showed the depth of your knowledge!

Be fair, it's not like there was any hint it might have been a joke.

Oh, wait: "May contain traces of irony"

As you were, then :-)

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 Washington University

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

What's it like to be universally ridiculed? It is an experience some of
us,
unlike you, have never had.

The only "ridiculing" consists of jeers from the anti-helmet peanut
gallery, the currently active participants being primarly:

Sorry Bill, but as Guy states, you are universally ridiculed. I've even had
people mention to me in cofee shops in Palo Alto.

I suggest that if you are going to post to a bicycle group that you at least
ride a bicycle.

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

Bill Z. wrote:

What's it like to be universally ridiculed? It is an experience
some of us, unlike you, have never had.

The only "ridiculing" consists of jeers from the anti-helmet peanut
gallery, the currently active participants being primarly:

You wish. Remember Australia: the final, clinching proof that what
makes
the difference in your mind between a credible post and one to be evaded
is
that it should support your preceonceived notions.

What on earth are you babbling about?

Babbling was what you were doing when Guy made the sarcastic comment that
Australia had canceled their helmet law and you struck on that like a salmon
(Zauman??) on a lure.

Let's face it funny face, you are a fish indeed.

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
You really hate being called on your pathetic evasions, don't you,
trollboy?

I'm not being "called on" anything.

I wonder, do you suppose your pathetic evasions look like anything but the
pathetic evasions that they are?