Helmet Nazis at It Again!

wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 11:57:20 -0700, wrote:


It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would
love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a
strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer
for second time offenders. Clear enough?


Well, no, really.

Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction?

What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand?


So you are in favour of an MHL.

Why then, are you so upset when I post the truth?

You are either a shameless liar, or a psychotic. Which is it? Or is the
lying a symptom of your psychosis?

Insults aside (please leave them aside; they do you no credit), are
you or are you not in favour of an MHL where I live?

Are you really this stoooopid, or are you posing as an imbecile for
fun?

One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you),
one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time
offenders.

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the
bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst
driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52
until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box
with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one
less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough?

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
writes:

Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD wrote:
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
writes:
Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with
proper
citations, web links if available, etc.

Actually, you very infrequently provide any data or any
documentation,
and rarely any proper citations.

Data up the wazoo, citations up the ying-yang. As to facts, however, a
plethora of paucity.

Well, you two will have to sort out your disagreement, I guess. One
claims I very infrequently provice data and citations. The other says
I provide lots of data and citations.

Actually, what we *all* are saying is that you post lots of noise. Of
course, we don't all read the same newsgroups. I'm reacting to what
you post on rec.bicycles.soc, not the other newsgroups.

I generally take care to give my citations in such a way that they can
be checked. Some are available online, some may require a trip to a
library. But they are valid and they can be checked, if the reader can
muster the initiative.

(We've had past "discussions" where the "citation" was merely the name
of an author who has published a number of papers, and where it is not
clear which one Krygowski (and/or others) were talking about).


Now, for the "Ludmilla" character: If posting data from recognized
sources, and posting citations of scientific papers from refereed
journals don't pass muster with you, then exactly what kind of "facts"
do you want?

Just curious.

Ones that were actually implied by the "scientific papers" in question
and that excludes research that subsequent work shows to be wrong or
incomplete as the case may be? It would be nice if you guys hadn't
always tried to turn "we didn't find anything" (due to our sample size
being too small or other technical problems) into "helmets don't
work".

Well, I can attest to personal experience. I used to be a very avid
Motorcycle Driver. In 99.9% of all accidents, the helmet neither helps or
hurts. I hit the ground many times being not too bright at times and doing
things that I would NEVER do today. I also was involved in a slow speed
accident where I cracked my helmet and liner all the way through and
dislocated my right shoulder (a year getting it almost back to orginal
condition, never fully back). I ended up with a mild concussion that it
took me at least a day to feel since the shoulder hurt like hell. Now,
without the helmet, would I have only suffered a mild concussion? Nope.
With that much helmet damage, the brain would have been mush.

Do I advocate mandatory helmet usage? Not usually. WE shouldn't legislate
stupidity away. It's a personal choice and not worth arguing about.

Daryl Hunt wrote:

Do I advocate mandatory helmet usage? Not usually. WE shouldn't legislate
stupidity away. It's a personal choice and not worth arguing about.

What some states are doing makes some sense, where they waive the
motorcycle helmet requirement for adults if the adult provides proof of
accident insurance in a certain amount. OTOH, the state doesn't require
such insurance for other activities that are just as potentially
dangerous but where there is no proven safey device such as a helmet
that reduces the risk of serious injury.

The Seinfeld quote is right on the money! It certainly describes some of
the AHZs!

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

Do I advocate mandatory helmet usage? Not usually. WE shouldn't
legislate stupidity away. It's a personal choice and not worth arguing
about.

What some states are doing makes some sense, where they waive the
motorcycle helmet requirement for adults if the adult provides proof of
accident insurance in a certain amount. OTOH, the state doesn't require
such insurance for other activities that are just as potentially dangerous
but where there is no proven safey device such as a helmet that reduces
the risk of serious injury.

The Seinfeld quote is right on the money! It certainly describes some of
the AHZs!

I am alive today due to wearing a helmet. Shall I prove it to myself
(feeling skull), yuppers, still here.

On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, wrote:

One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you),
one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time
offenders.

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the
bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst
driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52
until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box
with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one
less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough?


So you _are_ pro-MHL.

wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, wrote:

One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you),
one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time
offenders.

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the
bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst
driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52
until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box
with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one
less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough?


So you _are_ pro-MHL.

If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile.

You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you.

marika wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:
Great discussion, y'all.

Thats a big 10-12 there..

OK, first.... HOW many times do we have to read this same story? How
many more times are they going to report it to us? I've only read it
about 600 times so far. I am beginning to have panic attacks that it
will be reported yet again, over and over, have mercy.

66324 more times plus a strawberry shortcake handed to you by Daryl

I have a mild interest in "amateur
statistics"...all these studies will take studying!

67.8% of all online statistics are made up.

MULTI-TALENTED? statistician who can count and keep balance at the same
time

I count 5901

But yes, I agree
on "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks"...that's why they're helmet
NAZIS!!!

Willis was on Midnight Madness tonight.

And finally.... how come it's a snap to strip and gyrate in nakedness
in front of 6 cameramen, directors, producers, the grip,
and the best boy? Huh? but be afraid of falling

Foley is not a Democrat unlike what Fox News said.

On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, wrote:

One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you),
one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time
offenders.

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the
bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst
driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52
until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box
with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one
less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough?


So you _are_ pro-MHL.

If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile.

You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you.

But you say so yourself.

You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..."

Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is
that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's
are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that
you yourself are exempt?

writes:

On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, wrote:

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life* ...
So you _are_ pro-MHL.
If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile.
You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you.
But you say so yourself.

You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..."

Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is
that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's
are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that
you yourself are exempt?

He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one
person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural
noun. :-)

In your case, think of it as a sentence imposed by the Mikado, who
wanted to make the punishment fit the crime. Buy some tickets to
the next performance of it in your area if you don't get the
reference.

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:58:22 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


But you say so yourself.

You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..."

Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is
that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's
are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that
you yourself are exempt?

He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one
person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural
noun. :-)


Nevertherless, it is on record (repeatedly) that Ozark is in favour of
(at least one) MHL.

His claims to be "anti-MHL" are therefore false.