published helmet research - not troll

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With
China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00,
Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China.
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans
workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with
China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush
administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was
manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade
Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

In case you don't know, both are consistent positions. You can be in favor
of normal trade relations with China - treating China the same as other
countries - and still want to make sure that our government looks after
the interests of American workers, not the Bush ruling class.

Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.

Yep, it's consistent. I'll ignore the rest of your propaganda - it is
an obvious cut and paste job from the usual right-wing lunatic fringe.

You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?

Looks like Kunich is a real piece of work, doesn't it. He can't even
spell his favorite word.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having been proven wrong by your own data, you have the following
three possible choices:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having

[ snip repetition of Guy's continued cut and paste from his previous
posts ].

3. shut up.

Once again, Guy is whining like a little boy. What an infant. To
Guy a hint, you will not get anywhere by acting like a little boy.
I think I made the point clearly enough, regardless of your attempts
to misrepresent the data (and that is what you are doing.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, every piece of data you produced proved you wrong. At this
point there are three options open to you:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

Instead you choose ad-hominem, pretending that I am the one with
something to prove (when you are the one making claims of benefit) and
of course the good old Zaumen standby of evasion.

I expected nothing else.

This subthread now lives in the bitbucket, since it is absolutely
clear to all concerned that the evidence is against you but you would
rather try to bore us to death than either admit it or find new data
which does not contradict you.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data. You simply pretended that a limiting
case - a 1980s non-aerodynamic design was the best you could do, even
though we had several data points that did far better, and the non-
aerodynamic design was only slightly worse than riding with "long
hair" instead of going for a sci-fi cyborg look.


And you are *still* posting you childish baby talk. Ask your mommy,
Guy. She has obviously missed something while bringing you up and
you should go back to her for a refresher course.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion,

And I *did* back it up with data.

Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, but my money is
on 4. Evasion, 5. Repeating the same discredited assertion in the hope
that someone who hasn't read the data will believe it, or 6.
ad-hominem attack.

Thanks for all the data proving you wrong, that saved me a lot of
time. This subthread is now yours alone to enjoy in your inimitable
style (or rather unimitated, nobody else wanting to make quite such an
exhibition of themselves); no doubt you will claim that as a victory
because once you've driven off everybody who has any knowledge or
insight, in your usual way, you can claim that 100% of the remaining
participants agree with you. The fact that you /are/ 100% of the
remaining participants will no doubt not spoil your pleasure.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion,

And I *did* back it up with data.

Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

That is simply a lie on your part, and you are *still* being a child
with you infantile name calling (and pointing that out is *not*
an ad hominem attack - it is a simply a factual description of
your conduct.) The data clearly showed a non-aerodyamic helmet
that was slightly worse that riding with long hair, an ANSI certified
aerodynamic helmet that was better than riding with short hair, but
a bit worse than being bald headed, and a non-ANSI certified helmet
that reduced air drag over riding with a completely bald head. Quite
obviously, there are many design points in the middle - ANSI certified,
and that give you an air drag reduction for normal cyclists - ones
who don't pick their hair styles to save a few seconds on a bike
ride.


cut and paste job snipped

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, snip

You've said you are "outta here" (or words to that effect) before,
and it has *never* been true.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data.

When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

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

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data.

When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag. If
you have one limiting case, an older non-aerodynamic design with only
slightly worse drag than a bare head (for a cyclist with a full head
of hair) and other designs that do better than a cyclist with short
hair, then it is pretty obvious that there are lots of points in
between, and that you don't have to do very much better from the
symmetric helmet designs from the 1980s to see a net benefit.

Is that *really* so hard for you to understand or are you just lying
as usual? After all, your track record in the honesty department
should be an embarassment, even for you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.