Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:24:16 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

The issue was someone insisting that Steven write letters to the
Ontario government or newspapers, not a general discussion on usenet.

Or rather that, as he claims to oppose the law, it is reasonable to
ask what exactly he is doing about it, other than throwing insults at
those who can and do work against anti-cyclist legislation.

Oh come off it. Steven has no obligation to actively oppose
legistation in a country he doesn't live in (and he subsequently
did write a letter, as you should well know.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:47:55 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

True. But we know what you /don't/ read, because you keep proving
it...

Even when I've *quoted* an article, you morons claim I didn't read
it.

And when you admitted to not having read one study you used the excuse
of the library being closed for July 4 (presumably you live in some
kind of Groundhog Day, since it had been published years before).

Let's see. I stated I *found* a URL that day (the discussion had
been dead for years on the newsgroup I'm following) put the URL in
a response, and you and maybe some others started to whine that I
didn't first go down to the library on a day it was closed. Did
you want me to break in or something?

You
have also admitted to only having read the abstracts of other articles
you attempted to discuss ...

Guy, you are a liar. You go back into your timeout. You've run out
of arguments and are now foaming at the mouth and making a fool of
yourself.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)


No I don't.

Ok, thanks, Bill.


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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)
No I don't.

Ok, thanks, Bill.

It is particularly telling that Krygowski forged/modified my reply,
which stated

"No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually
hear or see."

Note Krygowski's editing of punctuation, giving the impression that he
was quoting a full sentence. Note also that Krygowksi specifically
eliminated the qualifying clause stating that my current opinion is
based on my personal experience (and BTW, I don't watch TV, which
sometimes gives me a different sense of what the news really is -
usually a more realistic sense - than the average American gets by
being spoon fed overhyped news on the boob tube, but also spares me
from much of what passes for advertising.)

Changing punctuation in order to change the meaning of a post as
Krygowski has done is fundamentally dishonest. He certainly didn't
snip it for brevity - to reply to one point in a much longer post.

Why he feels compelled to play such silly games is anyone's guess.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)

No I don't.

Ok, thanks, Bill.


It is particularly telling that Krygowski forged/modified my reply,
which stated

"No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually
hear or see."

Note Krygowski's editing of punctuation, giving the impression that he
was quoting a full sentence.

OK, my mistake. I should have indicated that you actually attached some
rationalization. Correction will be duly posted.

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

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:



So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)


No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear or
see.

OK, thanks, Bill.

"None is so blind as he who will not see." :-)


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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

No I don't.

Ok, thanks, Bill.
It is particularly telling that Krygowski forged/modified my reply,
which stated
"No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I
actually hear or see."
Note Krygowski's editing of punctuation, giving the impression that
he
was quoting a full sentence.

OK, my mistake. I should have indicated that you actually attached
some rationalization. Correction will be duly posted.

Given that the phrase you cut was only 12 words long, you should
have quoted the full sentence.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:



So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)
No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
or
see.

OK, thanks, Bill.

"None is so blind as he who will not see." :-)

People who hear and see things that are not there are normally assumed
to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
medication.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


Frank Krygowski writes:


So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)

No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
or
see.

OK, thanks, Bill.

"None is so blind as he who will not see." :-)


People who hear and see things that are not there are normally assumed
to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
medication.


:-) Whereas people who don't see what is plainly there... ??

Actually, there is a chance you're being completely honest. That is,
you may never look at bikes in department stores. You may never read
articles directed at parents, concerning bicycling. You may have never
visited a "Health Fair" at a mall. You may have never volunteered at a
bike rodeo. You may have never seen "Bike Safety" information put out
by state governements. You may have never attended a "Conference on
Child Safety" at a university. You may have never been handed leaflets
by a Safe Kids president. You may never have been asked to help write,
and speak in, bike safety PSAs for television. You may never have been
interviewed on TV regarding cycling.

I have done all these, and more. And in each and every one of these,
I've seen intense promotion of helmets.

So, you may not have noticed. But it exists.

And I think there's a chance that this promotion is why helmet use has
gone from an "enthusiast only" thing to a
"Mygod-don't-let-your-child-ride-without-it!" thing in the past 25 years.

I'm sure you disagree, of course! ;-)

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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


Frank Krygowski writes:


So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)

No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
or
see.

OK, thanks, Bill.

"None is so blind as he who will not see." :-)
People who hear and see things that are not there are normally
assumed
to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
medication.


:-) Whereas people who don't see what is plainly there... ??

.... may live in a different environment than you claim to.

Actually, there is a chance you're being completely honest.

Well, I was being completely honest.

That is,
you may never look at bikes in department stores.

Yep, that's true. Why do you look at them? Is that where you bought
your bike? I try to avoid department stores anyway.

You may never read articles directed at parents, concerning
bicycling.

That's true too. Why should I read such articles when I probably know
more than the author?

You may have never visited a "Health Fair" at a mall.

Yep, I avoid malls as much as possible and have never visited such a
"Health Fair", whatever the hell that is. If I want medical advise,
I'll ask my physician.

You may have never volunteered at a bike rodeo.

That's true too, although I have helped in a "train the parents in how
to get their kids to school session," so parents riding along with the
kids on their first day to school would actually know something. When
one asked about signaling, we told them that the important thing was
to look over your shoulder to get a positive indication that the
driver saw the signal and was going to let you in (the context was a
lane change), adding that signaling does not give you permission to
move sideways on the road. When asked about helmets, we suggested
adjusting and fitting them properly, treating them merely as a bit of
extra protection, and that what we really wanted to concentrate on was
how to avoid accidents in the first place. The "helmet" discussion (in
reply to a question) took all of 15 seconds. Is that what you mean
by "helmet promotion?"

You may have never seen "Bike Safety" information put out by state
governements.

Nope ... never read the stuff. Why should I? What could I possibly
learn from it?

You may have never attended a "Conference on Child Safety" at a
university. You may have never been handed leaflets by a Safe Kids
president. You may never have been asked to help write, and speak
in, bike safety PSAs for television. You may never have been
interviewed on TV regarding cycling.

Blah, blah, blah... you are simply being tiresome. Oh, and as I
told you in a previous message, I generally don't watch TV, so why
would you ask about what I saw on TV? Did you actually read what
you are responding to?


I have done all these, and more. And in each and every one of these,
I've seen intense promotion of helmets.

Oh please. What do we have here? Sounds to me like you are whining
about a lot of trivia. Like the tags on department store bikes (no
doubt put their at the suggestion of a corporate lawyer trying to
cover the store's ass in case of a lawsuit) you or someone once cried
about as flagrant helmet promotion. Hint: people ignore warning
labels, seeing them as yet more visual fluff. When warnings are put
on so many things, they get treated as background noise. You know,
like corporate logos decorating most products.

So, you may not have noticed. But it exists.

Yep, I don't see that very much if at all.

And I think there's a chance that this promotion is why helmet use has
gone from an "enthusiast only" thing to a
"Mygod-don't-let-your-child-ride-without-it!" thing in the past 25
years.

I'm sure you disagree, of course! ;-)

Of course - you are quite frankly charging off out of control, like
the proverbial bull looking at the matador's red cape.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB