Ongoing debate

On Aug 12, 7:18*pm, JMS wrote:

It was chastised by the ASA for lying.

False. The ASA does not cover websites (which is why BHIT still make
the 85%/88% claim on their website despite giving an undertaking to
the ASA not to repeat it in any future published promotional
material).

The ASA ruling to which the OP refers is
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and.../CS_39144.aspx.
Do make sure you don't leave a space in the url as you unwrap it. Note
that the respondent in the complaint is not cyclehelmets.org but CTC,
CCN and LCC, whose campaigners wrote the content.
--
Guy

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:34:40 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Aug 12, 7:18*pm, JMS wrote:

It was chastised by the ASA for lying.

False. The ASA does not cover websites (which is why BHIT still make
the 85%/88% claim on their website despite giving an undertaking to
the ASA not to repeat it in any future published promotional
material).

The ASA ruling to which the OP refers is
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and.../CS_39144.aspx.
Do make sure you don't leave a space in the url as you unwrap it. Note
that the respondent in the complaint is not cyclehelmets.org but CTC,
CCN and LCC, whose campaigners wrote the content.



Hello, hello, hello - it looks like Porky's ability to use a kill-file
has failed again.

Part of the complaint:

"challenged the claim "www.cyclehelmets.org, an international site
supported by doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people
with professional involvement in helmet design and performance".


Adjudication:

The Authority considered that the claim " ... an international site
supported by ..." implied the website was fully endorsed by doctors,
cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional
involvement in helmet design and performance. Because it was not, the
Authority concluded that the claim was misleading.


So the website makes a claim (which is repeated by someone else) - and
the ASA find that claim misleading.

I would say that the site was chastised by the ASA wouldn't you?

Here is another question for you Porky - I know you love them:

Were any of the editors of cyclehelmets.org involved in writing the
leaflet complained about?

Here's a bit more historical ****e from them:

"cyclehelmets.org is under the aegis of the Bicycle Helmet Research
Foundation (BHRF), an incorporated body with a world-wide membership,
to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of the use of
bicycle helmets. Material appearing on this site is vetted by BHRF,
but not with the same rigour as papers published in the name of BHRF
itself."


Now wtf does that mean?


--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Aug 14, 3:54*pm, JMS wrote:

Hello, hello, hello - it looks like Porky's ability to use a kill-file
has failed again.

Hello, hello, hello, looks like judith is pretending Google Groups has
a killfile again.

Part of the complaint:

Which is totally irtelevant.

As I said, your statement is factually incorrect: no complaint was
made to ASA about cyclehelmets.org, and had such a complaint been made
the ASA would have rejected it because they do not cover content of
websites, only paid advertisements.

You can see at the top of the complaint (which I linked) that the
respondents were, as I noted, CTC, the Cycle Campaign Network and
London Cycle Campaign. The leaflet was written by volunteer
campaigners from those three organisations.

You were wrong. Simple and unambiguous. I won't expect an apology, a
months-long trolling campaign pretending you are right would be more
in character.
--
Guy

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:54:49 +0100, JMS wrote:


Hello, hello, hello - it looks like Porky's ability to use a kill-file
has failed again.

I don't kill-file my entertainment.


snip


--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Aug 14, 3:54*pm, JMS wrote:

Hello, hello, hello - it looks like Porky's ability to use a kill-file
has failed again.

Hello, hello, hello, looks like judith is pretending Google Groups has
a killfile again.

Yes - sorry - we forget.

You are indeed compelled to read and comment on my every post - and
thank you very much for doing so.

You didn't answer the question :

Were any of the editors of cyclehelmets.org involved in writing the
leaflet complained about?

Also have you no comment on the ****e which you snipped:

"cyclehelmets.org is under the aegis of the Bicycle Helmet Research
Foundation (BHRF), an incorporated body with a world-wide membership,
to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of the use of
bicycle helmets. Material appearing on this site is vetted by BHRF,
but not with the same rigour as papers published in the name of BHRF
itself."
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:53:16 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:54:49 +0100, JMS wrote:


Hello, hello, hello - it looks like Porky's ability to use a kill-file
has failed again.

I don't kill-file my entertainment.



Sorry - are you also called Porky?

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Aug 15, 7:09*pm, JMS wrote:

You are indeed compelled to read and comment on my every post - and
thank you very much for doing so.

Nope. I sometimes make an effort to do so when quoted text indicates
you've told a particularly egregious lie (as in your sig, for
example),

The simple fact is: you stated that cyclehelmets.org had been
"chastised for lying", this was false on two counts: first, the
complaint was not against the site but against three bodies who
jointly published a leaflet in a (successful) campaign, second, the
ASA ruling uses the term "potentially misleading" and goes to some
lengths to show that the publishers did in fact sincerely believe
their comments to be justified, so to say ASA accused anyone of lying
is mendacious.

You get the last word, Correcting all your mendacity would be a full-
time job, and I have no intention of even trying as you evidently have
more time to post **** than anybody has to correct it.
--
Guy

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:11:04 +0100, JMS wrote:


Sorry - are you also called Porky?

Thank you very much for the honour and the compliment!
I cannot wait until I achieve the great honour of big chief carrier of
the dog-turd filled hydrocele!

snip

--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:26:35 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Aug 15, 7:09*pm, JMS wrote:

You are indeed compelled to read and comment on my every post - and
thank you very much for doing so.

Nope. I sometimes make an effort to do so when quoted text indicates
you've told a particularly egregious lie (as in your sig, for
example),


Sorry - Porky - what exactly do you think is a lie in my sig?

I will of course correct it if it is incorrect - please explain - I
would hate to give people the wrong impression about you - Porky.




--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:07:19 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:11:04 +0100, JMS wrote:


Sorry - are you also called Porky?

Thank you very much for the honour and the compliment!
I cannot wait until I achieve the great honour of big chief carrier of
the dog-turd filled hydrocele!

snip


Many thanks for reading and commenting on my posts.

If you wish - I can send you a complete list at the end of the month -
just in case you miss any.

Are you called Porky - because you **** pigs?
Or is there another reason?

Anyway - keep up the good work.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.