|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:26:03 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did nothing other than send out a press release. If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about the reporter's judgement. In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to read the article. See below: I've seen enough of Burdett's posts on this newgroup to have some real doubts about a reporter who talks about some paper but quotes Burdett, whose biases are obvious from what he's posted here. Ah, so now it's unnecessary to read the research simply because it is reported by someone who quotes someone whose views you disagree with. Fascinating. Not a terribly good basis for informed judgment, though. You don't know what I've read. It is not like you have a webcam in my home to spy on me. Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study. Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I had read it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"jtaylor" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... "jtaylor" writes: "Bill Z." wrote in message ou have? The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll just see what you want to see.) So you _haven't_ read it? I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes will simply claim I haven't no matter what. Your posts suggests you haven't read it: "...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author used..." The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased. and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm or deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would be a case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see. I didn't jump to any conclusions about the paper. I made a statement about a reporter's article. I'd make the same sort of statement if a reporter prominantly quoted George Bush in an article about a paper evaluating the effectivenss of condoms. It is one of their traditional tactics. You can even quote the relevant text from an article and they will *still* claim you haven't read it. Check the archives and you can find some examples of this. So merely because the article - which you may or may not have read - was introduced by someone with whom you have disagreed in the past, you can claim it is of no value? Less charitable people might call that, well, "jumping to a conclusion". There is history to this discussion going back over 10 years. If *you* want to avoid "jumping to a conclusion" I suggest you go through all the relevant posts before commenting. You'll see cases where I quoted an article verbatim and these guys *still* denied that I had read it. You'll also see them using the "big lie" technique - repeating a statement over and over in the hopes that people will forget who said it and eventually assume it is true. Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends out. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:28:39 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased. The author is Carlton Reid, editor of Bicycle Business magazine, a leading bike trade journal. He is a cyclist, and as a journalist specialises almost exclusively in cycling. He is strongly pro-helmet. You lose, sucker. Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends out. Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Or reading, apparently. An unusually worthless piece of input from Zaumen, really; nothing to say about either the study or the article. Why not just post "I hate Burdett" and be done with it, Bill? That way at least you won't look like a complete idiot by trying to defend your irrational refusal to read a story in a trade mag simply because it quotes someone you disagree with on religious grounds. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes will simply claim I haven't no matter what. Your posts suggests you haven't read it: "...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author used..." The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased. Many would say that his "bias" is correct; he certainly has a powerful set of facts and studies to support him. He does not, I notice, suggest (as you appear to do) that people who might have an interest in the subject avoid information which a) has a provenance of impeccable scientific credence; and b) does not agree with your own point of view (sometimes short-termed as "bias"). and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm or deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would be a case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see. I didn't jump to any conclusions about the paper. I made a statement about a reporter's article. But you made your disparaging statement without reading the article, or the source on which it was based - you just saw the name of someone with whom you claim to disagree, and because of that you make your conclusion that the article was not worth reading. Is that not an unsupportable jump? Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends out. Is this another case of not seeing what you don't wish to see? And why do you feel the need to buttress your arguments with name-calling - surely if you believe what you say has merit this is not necessary! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to read the article. [ ...snipping...] You don't know what I've read. It is not like you have a webcam in my home to spy on me. Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study. Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I had read it. Then why did you say in your original post: "...and I presume that [ Avery Burdett ]is the major source the author used." If you had indeed read the article you would know that Burdett was not the major source used, and so (unless you deliberately intended to lie) would not have posted what you did. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote: "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did nothing other than send out a press release. Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study. Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I had read it. Well, this ought to be simple to clear up. Bill, just say whether you read it or not. It did look, from your first post, as though you hadn't. Nothing you've posted since has said you have - and it all matches what someone who hadn't read it, and now doesn't wish that to be known, would say. And being abusive doesn't help your position either... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:18:17 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: I've seen enough of Burdett's posts on this newgroup to have some real doubts about a reporter who talks about some paper but quotes Burdett, whose biases are obvious from what he's posted here. In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to read the article. Again. snip Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy? I'll flush the rest of your posts today. You are obviously trolling to restart an argument from last summer. Is it getting to be the season again or something for you to go on yet another of your infantile helmet rants? Or are you getting tired of arguing with Mike Vandeman and are looking for another person to bother? Even Vandeman is an improvement over you. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"jtaylor" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes will simply claim I haven't no matter what. Your posts suggests you haven't read it: "...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author used..." The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased. Many would say that his "bias" is correct; he certainly has a powerful set of facts and studies to support him. He doesn't. The guy quite frankly doesn't know what he is talking about. I suspect you don't either. It's all been covered before. Just check the archives over the past 10 or 15 years. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Helmet Advice | DDEckerslyke | Social Issues | 17 | September 2nd 03 11:10 PM |