Helmet Nazis at It Again!

How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted
time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."
snip

Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski.

Well, nobody who wants to promote helmet use worries about it, that's
for sure!

Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising,

:-) Wrong again, Bill. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing such
a statement in an advertisement.

No, that statement is used instead by people promoting helmets. These
are people who feel a need to scare others into using the products they
favor, even if it scares people away from bicycling.

Admittedly, many of them are truly altruistic; they've bought the
distortions fed to them by others, and feel it's their mission in life
to save others from dangers. Even imaginary ones.

and IMHO anyone who believes advertising
is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway.

So, people you define as fools should not ride bikes? Is there anyone
else your lordship would like to exclude?

Personally, I believe in promoting cycling, not restricting it.

This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more
head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people
into wearing helmets.

No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought
would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising
is supposed to do.

Spoken with spectacular ignorance. As explained in another post, the
examples I gave did NOT come from advertising.

So you are wrong yet again. If you had any shame at all, you'd simply
stop posting.

- Frank Krygowski

di wrote:
How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted
time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy

You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter
the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the
second choice you proposed.

You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to
learn about the issue.

So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested,
or don't read them if you're not.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
On 7 Oct 2006 15:22:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL.

In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this
stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or
are you just being deceptive?

Which is it:

Stupid?

or

Deceptive?

Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a
helmet?

I want you (and *only* you) to have a Mandatory Helmet LIFE; to be
forced to wear a helmet 24/7/52, in everything you do from riding a
bike to pulling your lil' pud. I wish this on you because you are an
obnoxious, twisted ass who drags a helmet law into every discussion of
helmets, even when no one else has even alluded to such a law.

Other than that, I am anti-adult MHLs. As to child MHLs, I leave that
to the parents in the affected areas.

On 7 Oct 2006 16:55:43 -0700, wrote:


Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a
helmet?

I want you (and *only* you) to have a Mandatory Helmet LIFE; to be
forced to wear a helmet 24/7/52, in everything you do from riding a
bike to pulling your lil' pud.

I can take that as a yes, then.

Proven: Ozark is pro-MHL.

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."
snip

Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski.

Well, nobody who wants to promote helmet use worries about it, that's
for sure!

Nobody except you and a few other usenet kooks care either.

Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising,

:-) Wrong again, Bill. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing such
a statement in an advertisement.

No, that statement is used instead by people promoting helmets. These
are people who feel a need to scare others into using the products they
favor, even if it scares people away from bicycling.

Getting people to "[use] the products" is, err, part of "advertising".
If nobody will use it, you won't sell it.


and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they
probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway.

So, people you define as fools should not ride bikes? Is there anyone
else your lordship would like to exclude?

Hit a nerve, haven't I. Of course, the comment was really that anyone
that dumb shouldn't ride bikes because they would obviously lack the
mental capacity needed to operate one safely. They shouldn't drive
cars either.

Personally, I believe in promoting cycling, not restricting it.

Even to people who lack the mental capacity needed to ride one with a
reasonable level of safely?


No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought
would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising
is supposed to do.

Spoken with spectacular ignorance. As explained in another post, the
examples I gave did NOT come from advertising.

So you are wrong yet again. If you had any shame at all, you'd simply
stop posting.

Projection - Krygowski always makes mountains out of molehills and
then gets self-righteous when has behavior is pointed out.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post
from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much.

Look for this in Google groups:

"I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"

Oh, you mean the wiseass who suggested that you personally (and only
you) should be requried to wear a helmet? He was joking, you moron!
It was a case of letting the punishment fit the crime. You know, like
in _The Mikado_, where the Mikado expresses his desire to make
billiard sharks play with a twisted que and elliptical billiard balls.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
(Tom Keats) writes:

Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show
what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars
are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness.

Oink, oink.

Are you still in elementary school?

Why do you have such an interest in elementary school students?

Let's just say that I wish that the parents of certain elementary
school students would monitor their children's use of computers more
carefully.

Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out, driving your stoopid car.

Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult
for you.

Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult.
Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar.

You are delusional, not to mention dishonest.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody
with a world view or belief system.

But I don't foist my delusions on other people.
I like people. I don't wanna persuade 'em to
my will. Let 'em wear helmets if they want;
let 'em not wear helmets if they don't wanna.

But let the people know what to expect of their
glorified styrofoam egg cartons (and what not to.)

rest of this moron's post snipped.

Truth is so elusive. And you aid & abet its escape.

You're so abundant with your ad-hominae.

In a word, you're an insufferable asshole.

But I forgive you.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
SMS writes:
I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or
merely delusional.
Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out driving your stoopid car.

I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some
meds, the better.

Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most
of us have done.

You helmet zealots are too much.
But then, you car worshippers are too much, too.
Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear
helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort.

Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I
certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I
might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either.

Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot.

wiping a drop of Bill Z's indignant spittle outa my eye

Hit a nerve, did I?


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 16:55:43 -0700, wrote:


Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a
helmet?

I want you (and *only* you) to have a Mandatory Helmet LIFE; to be
forced to wear a helmet 24/7/52, in everything you do from riding a
bike to pulling your lil' pud.

I can take that as a yes, then.

Proven: Ozark is pro-MHL.

Not only do you have a reading-comprehension problem (real or faked)
but you are obviously were being disingenious in your previous reply
to me were you listed someone named "Ozark": his user name is obs, not
"ozark". The thing after the '@' is the fully qualified name of a
host, not the name of a user.





--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB