|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: Krygowksi, of course, is lying Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable personal abuse. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
Ads |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: Krygowksi, of course, is lying Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable personal abuse. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:57:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: What facts and what "ability to argue constructively"? Sure they'll cite things, but they'll misrepresent what the original says (and disparage any research that doesn't fit their agenda). I acknowledge that I disparage some research, most notably the 1989 Seattle study, but not because it does not fit my agenda. Actually my agenda changed completely in response to finding out just how shoddy some of thet research is. If you want to argue point-by-point over the research I disparage, I'd be glad to oblige. Have you read that paper yet? 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:57:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: What facts and what "ability to argue constructively"? Sure they'll cite things, but they'll misrepresent what the original says (and disparage any research that doesn't fit their agenda). I acknowledge that I disparage some research, most notably the 1989 Seattle study, but not because it does not fit my agenda. Actually my agenda changed completely in response to finding out just how shoddy some of thet research is. If you want to argue point-by-point over the research I disparage, I'd be glad to oblige. Have you read that paper yet? 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:35:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: It isn't just the name-calling. It's all the snide comments, something that Frank is also famous for. It isn't funny, and it isn't interesting. Yeah. Snide comments like: prove it" and "cite a reference for that". Completely unacceptable. We are supposed to take your word for it, you are, after all, "one of Earth's leading experts on cycle helmets". Even if you haven't read much of the research. I think what got Frank's and my goat in particular was your stating that our methods of opposing helmet laws - i.e. showing that the research underpinning them is often junk and the claimed benefits have *never* been realised in a real population - do not work. Frank and I have both opposed helmet laws. A group of which I am part led the campaign against the law in the UK, and the law was defeated. I have letters from MPs who have changed their view to oppose compulsion based on the information we provided. Frank has testified in front of legislators. Scharf then comes along and says that this approach cannot work. Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say. The website http://www.cyclehelmets.org was instrumental in defeating the UK law last year. Scharf says this site is "not credible". Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say - although he is happy to cite Randy "don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's BHSI, which uses the discredited 85% figure (which he acknowledges is wrong) because a change "would not be helpful". Some of us think that honesty is more important than helpfulness to helmet promoters; we are funny that way. Scharf denounces dissent, refuses to acknowledge contradictory evidence, and when challenged, takes his ball away to his private website where he can control both medium and message. He has done this on the issue of dynamo lighting, and again on the issue of helmets. I conclude that he believes his own hype: having decided that he is one of Earth's leading experts, anyone who disagrees - however much evidence they might have - must simply be wrong. I have followed the helmet argument for a long time, and become substantially better informed than in the days when I believed the hype. The more I study it the more convinced I am that there are no easy answers. I also note that Frank, for example, displays much more detailed knowledge of the evidence base than do any of those proposing helmets as "necessary." This is a consistent theme in helmet wars throughout Usenet, as far as I can tell; the detailed knowledge always seems to be found in those arguing against the dominance of the entire cycle safety agenda by the single issue of helmets. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:35:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: It isn't just the name-calling. It's all the snide comments, something that Frank is also famous for. It isn't funny, and it isn't interesting. Yeah. Snide comments like: prove it" and "cite a reference for that". Completely unacceptable. We are supposed to take your word for it, you are, after all, "one of Earth's leading experts on cycle helmets". Even if you haven't read much of the research. I think what got Frank's and my goat in particular was your stating that our methods of opposing helmet laws - i.e. showing that the research underpinning them is often junk and the claimed benefits have *never* been realised in a real population - do not work. Frank and I have both opposed helmet laws. A group of which I am part led the campaign against the law in the UK, and the law was defeated. I have letters from MPs who have changed their view to oppose compulsion based on the information we provided. Frank has testified in front of legislators. Scharf then comes along and says that this approach cannot work. Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say. The website http://www.cyclehelmets.org was instrumental in defeating the UK law last year. Scharf says this site is "not credible". Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say - although he is happy to cite Randy "don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's BHSI, which uses the discredited 85% figure (which he acknowledges is wrong) because a change "would not be helpful". Some of us think that honesty is more important than helpfulness to helmet promoters; we are funny that way. Scharf denounces dissent, refuses to acknowledge contradictory evidence, and when challenged, takes his ball away to his private website where he can control both medium and message. He has done this on the issue of dynamo lighting, and again on the issue of helmets. I conclude that he believes his own hype: having decided that he is one of Earth's leading experts, anyone who disagrees - however much evidence they might have - must simply be wrong. I have followed the helmet argument for a long time, and become substantially better informed than in the days when I believed the hype. The more I study it the more convinced I am that there are no easy answers. I also note that Frank, for example, displays much more detailed knowledge of the evidence base than do any of those proposing helmets as "necessary." This is a consistent theme in helmet wars throughout Usenet, as far as I can tell; the detailed knowledge always seems to be found in those arguing against the dominance of the entire cycle safety agenda by the single issue of helmets. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 GMT, Bill "laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions. Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might want to consider that in any evaluation. So what you are saying here is that you are a fool, and Frank and I are liars. Or is it the other way around? 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 GMT, Bill "laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote: I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions. Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might want to consider that in any evaluation. So what you are saying here is that you are a fool, and Frank and I are liars. Or is it the other way around? 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Erik Freitag wrote:
Making this about Bill is as bad as Bill making this about you. rec.bicyclyes.soc would be a more useful place if it were used for mentoring and education. I'm all for getting the discussion off the personal issues and onto the factual issues. Erik, if you want to be the one to monitor the conversation and cry "foul," that might be a useful effort. As it is, I think one person tends to mistakenly read a "tone of voice" into the post of another - a limitation of the medium. They retaliate by throwing out an unkind word - a human failing, to be sure. The original poster sees the unkind word and returns more unkindness, and the situation deteriorates. Of course, there are those who are on hair-trigger, so to speak. Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd like that. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Erik Freitag wrote:
Making this about Bill is as bad as Bill making this about you. rec.bicyclyes.soc would be a more useful place if it were used for mentoring and education. I'm all for getting the discussion off the personal issues and onto the factual issues. Erik, if you want to be the one to monitor the conversation and cry "foul," that might be a useful effort. As it is, I think one person tends to mistakenly read a "tone of voice" into the post of another - a limitation of the medium. They retaliate by throwing out an unkind word - a human failing, to be sure. The original poster sees the unkind word and returns more unkindness, and the situation deteriorates. Of course, there are those who are on hair-trigger, so to speak. Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd like that. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |