Irresponsible Ad

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:21:38 GMT, the person
known to the court as (Bill Z.) made a
statement in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

trying to justify a personal decision by claiming that any
positive result regarding helmets must be bogus just makes you
and Guy look like fools.

Especially when we can cite chapter and verse to prove it. That
really makes us look stupid, doesn't it? :-D

Frank's right - you're hilarious!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:26:28 GMT, the person
known to the court as (Bill Z.) made a
statement in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

So you say.

Repeating yourself again?

Yes, Bill. Amazingly, when you keep repeating the same assertion you
get essentially the same response. Who'd have thought it?

Let's see, I point out that you are repeating yourself and you post
hundreds of lnes of repetitive nonsense that no one in his right
mind bothers to read, including me, and then youtry to justify this
idiotic behavior.

hundreds of lines of recycled strawmen and bogus arguments snipped.
Guy, do you have anything new to say? Your whole spiel was discredited
ages ago.

Hurrah! New ones for the Dictionary of Zaumenisms!

Bogus: Provably true, especially if previously evaded by Zaumen

Discredited: Evaded

Straw man: Valid argument which conflicts with Zaumen's cherished
beliefs


Guy is once again proving that he has the emotional maturity of an
infant. What a loser.

rest snipped - it's the same old recycled nonesense


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


Congratulations, Bill, you get the prize for evasion of the week!
With those few words you have excised every last vestige of the issue
under debate! Truly a masterpiece of ad-hominem of which you should
be justly proud.

Saying you repeated yourself is not an "ad hominem" argument, but rather
a statement of fact.

And of course you are ignoring the fact that since you repeated the
same bull**** you got substantially the same response.

Saying you repeated yourself is not "bull****" but a statement of
fact. I'll put you back in your timeout, as you obviously have
nothing to say.

rest of Guy's idiocy snipped



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:10:00 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Let's see, I point out that you are repeating yourself and you post
hundreds of lnes of repetitive nonsense that no one in his right
mind bothers to read, including me, and then youtry to justify this
idiotic behavior.

Let's see, I point out that you've evaded some evidence and repeat it,
and you use the fact that you've previously evaded it as an excuse to
evade it again. Amazingly, you seem to think this is in some way
better than actually addressing the evidence. I wonder why? And I
wonder who you think you are fooling?

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:13:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Saying you repeated yourself is not "bull****" but a statement of
fact.

Indeed, and saying that I repeated myself because you repeatedly
evaded facts which I posted is equally a statement of fact. For some
reason you appear to think that serial evasion and ad-hominem are
better than discussing the evidence. But I don't think anybody is
fooled.

Congratulations, incidentally, you are front-runner for the "evasion
of the week" prize for the second week running! Three weeks in a row
and you get to *keep* that dried bullchip on its polished wooden
plinth!

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:10:00 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Let's see, I point out that you are repeating yourself and you post
hundreds of lnes of repetitive nonsense that no one in his right
mind bothers to read, including me, and then youtry to justify this
idiotic behavior.

Let's see, I point out that you've evaded some evidence and repeat it,
and you use the fact that you've previously evaded it as an excuse to
evade it again. Amazingly, you seem to think this is in some way
better than actually addressing the evidence. I wonder why? And I
wonder who you think you are fooling?

There was no "evasion". Rather, you were being ignored for being
a bore, and a rather rude bore at that.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:13:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Saying you repeated yourself is not "bull****" but a statement of
fact.

Indeed, and saying that I repeated myself because you repeatedly
evaded facts which I posted is equally a statement of fact.
snip

Your posts consisted of infantile personal comments and one distortion
after another. Once a couple were pointed out, I simply "timed out"
due to being bored.

When you post 10 times as much as I do in your responses as you have
been for months, why on earth shouldn't I ignore most of it? Unlike
you, I don't keep a long file of junk to cut and paste from, since I'm
not obsessed like you seem to be, and have more important things to do
with my time.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

I submit that on or about Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:08:22 GMT, the person
known to the court as (Bill Z.) made a
statement in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

Let's see, I point out that you've evaded some evidence and repeat it,
and you use the fact that you've previously evaded it as an excuse to
evade it again. Amazingly, you seem to think this is in some way
better than actually addressing the evidence. I wonder why? And I
wonder who you think you are fooling?

There was no "evasion". Rather, you were being ignored for being
a bore, and a rather rude bore at that.

So you say. Meanwhile you have successfully steered debate away from
the subject at hand, and falsely portrayed this alleged "rudeness" as
being restricted to those who disagree with you. That dried, mounted
bullchip never had a more worthy recipient than you, Bill :-D

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:14:53 GMT, the person
known to the court as (Bill Z.) made a
statement in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

Your posts consisted of infantile personal comments and one distortion
after another. Once a couple were pointed out, I simply "timed out"
due to being bored.

Yours, on the other hand, consisted of infantile personal comments
/and evasions/. Once a few were pointed out you started to use the
pointing-out as another excuse to evade...

When you post 10 times as much as I do in your responses as you have
been for months, why on earth shouldn't I ignore most of it?

Yes, heaven forfend that you should actually /consider/ anything which
challenges your cherished beliefs, especially if backed by evidence.
That would be too, too terrible.

I think that's the end of this thread. As usual you have resolutely
refused to address the facts; I live in hope that one day this may
change. But I'm not holding my breath.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

I submit that on or about Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:08:22 GMT, the person
known to the court as (Bill Z.) made a
statement in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

Let's see, I point out that you've evaded some evidence and repeat it,
and you use the fact that you've previously evaded it as an excuse to
evade it again. Amazingly, you seem to think this is in some way
better than actually addressing the evidence. I wonder why? And I
wonder who you think you are fooling?

There was no "evasion". Rather, you were being ignored for being
a bore, and a rather rude bore at that.

So you say. Meanwhile you have successfully steered debate away from
the subject at hand, and falsely portrayed this alleged "rudeness" as
being restricted to those who disagree with you. That dried, mounted
bullchip never had a more worthy recipient than you, Bill :-D

You were recently caught lying about what was said in a BMA meeting,
spinning a humorous remark about "health and saftey" objecting to the
risk of a watermelon splattering (if dropped as a demo) into the
speaker proposing a watermelon as a "scientific model" for helmet
effectiveness. You've posted similar distortions many times, one
after the other, and then tried to spin you way out of it. You've
literally spent months making infantile comments about me personally.
And now you have the nerve to claim that I somehow "steered the
debate" when you've been posting at least 10 times as much text as I
have. And you even complain when you are simply being ignored.

Guy, you are completely incorrigible - a man whose behavior would even
embarass Mike Vandeman.

I'll flush the other post of yours that is queeued on my server as
well - you are obviously back in ranting/whining mode and that post
no doubt has nothing in it either, other than your normal knee jerk
response to everything I write.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB