|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him, and liars. Guy, of course, is lying again. I've never called anyone a "liar" for simply disagreeing with me. I have for claiming I've said things that I never said or posting libelous statements that they couldn't back up. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote: Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years. Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill? More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Ken [NY] wrote: "When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters." --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.] " Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12) Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off heads of civilians? I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're right about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.) Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have something to do with one of those Ten Commandments. Just the fact that you'd compare kidnapping innocent men /and women/ and cutting off their heads to capital punishment of /convicted murderers/ (after years and years of legal appeals while being incarcerated and treated /relatively/ humanely) speaks volumes...ABOUT YOU, FRANK. Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup? Is there an alt.head-in-the-sand?!? Bill "sign yourself up" S. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote in message : really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions! LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-) Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted, not to mention the fact that Krygowski was claiming helmets don't work but apparently (given their reaction) neither want to talk about controling for changes in driver behavior over the time frame when helmet use went up substantially. It's the usual double standard on their part. Also, a few minutes spent outside at an intersection looking at drivers in the Bay Area will convince you that there is a major problem with people running red lights and otherwise behaving far more recklessly than was typical 30 years ago. It is simply common knowledge, and is hardly surprising. Just plot a graph of the population changes over the past 30 years with the number of police officers on the road handing out moving violations. If you don't think that has an impact, then ask why a standard police procedure is to step up enforcement a few days before they do a speed survey to set the speed limit when a city would like the limit reduced. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Keller writes:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote: Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence. But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given how often you do this sort of thing. Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics you do. Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead? Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence," (and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what transpired.) Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of the person telling the truth. Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a purely personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in response. And that also has been going on for at least a decade. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted... Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant! Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data. As usual. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Maggie Wrote: RogerDodger wrote in message ... Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling? I guess the same thing as helmets for skateboarding, rollerblading or any other sport where you could possible fall on your head and crack your skull. I was speaking of "choices" we make or should be free to make. Unless you wear a motorcycle helmet to ride your bike they have nothing to do with bicycling. My point was choices we make. Minor point - the statement "Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?" wasn't from me Maggie - it was part of what what someone else said and which I included in a quote (and don't actually agree with). One major concern held by many others (including me) is this ever onward incursion by these namby pamby interfering Nannies. It's a pain - where do these people get their Nanny licences from? As much as we despise having other people poking their paternalistic interfering noses into our business, I think it's important to recognise that there are some situations where paternalistic interference is warranted or justifiable (not here tho!). What we would be better off doing is going beyond simply expressing our general disdain for various interventions (because that's not going to do anything to ward off these ecroachments), and into debating and rebutting whatever claims are made in support of the particular interventions that we consider unwarranted or misguided. Roger -- RogerDodger |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. Wrote: Peter Keller writes: Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead? Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence," (and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what transpired.) Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of the person telling the truth. Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a purely personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in response. And that also has been going on for at least a decade. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB The difference is, Bill, that you're beyond the pale with your gratuitous ad hominem attacks, whereas others like Frank, Guy, myself and now Peter are making justifiable observations and criticisms of your MO. What you can't seem to get into your thick head is that your manner is appalling and you seem to be completely impervious to feedback aimed at trying to get you cut out that sort of unacceptable crap. Roger -- RogerDodger |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted... Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant! Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response never arrived. Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data. As usual. You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results. Those *include* changes in driver behavior. As to the age of the stories, the substantial increase in helmet use happened about 10 years ago (a bit more, actually), so those years *are* relevant. The California helmet law as also passed at around that time. Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are IMHO pretending otherwise. I can tell you from personal experience that in the 1970s, if a pedestrian even looked like he or she was going to cross at an intersection, drivers in the Bay Area would stop. Now (illegally) they if anything speed up. If you *do* stop for a pedestrian, which is required by law, the drivers behind you will throw a fit and start honking their horns. So don't try to pretend that driver behavior has not gotten substantially worse. It has gotten worse. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? Wrote: On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:02:32 GMT, Chris Phillipo wrote: Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law over here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws (example above) are criminal law. I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand by that. Show me proof to the contrary. No, what you actually said was that because no-one is going to jail, it is not a crime. That does not follow. I am asking: are you sure that the helmet law is outside the criminal code? Because the law proposed in the UK and to the best of my knowledge the laws in Aus and NZ, are criminal law. This is actually a completely straight question. Guy Strictly speaking fines for not wearing a helmet might be a misdemeanor rather than a crime but the fact is that if you don''t pay these fines then you can end up being jailed for not paying the fines for not wearing a helmet. Shortening that last clause gives "getting jailed for not wearing a helmet". I seem to remember seeing on an Aussie website (cyclehelmets.org?) a press clipping of a chap (a Kiwi in Perth) who was jailed by an over enthusiastic cop. This is not an unusual occurrence I might add - for some strange reason there seems to be a worldwide propensity for cops to treat petty and inconsequential cycling infractions as being very very serious. Roger -- RogerDodger |
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 06:56 PM |