Helmet propaganda debunked

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:33:16 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy?
The only time I use cut and paste is when it is necessary to get the
message across. f your posts today.
In your case it is often - cut and paste is pretty much all I see
from you.

So you say. If you did not go to such enormous lengths to avoid
anything which might challenge your cherished assumptions you would
have a somewhat different experience, of course.

In point of fact, though, you have in the past accused me of using
copy and paste when, had you read either of the posts, it would be
obvious that I had not. Not that you would dream of rubbishing
something based on your preconceptions of what it might say, rather
than what it does say. Oh no, perish the thought.

The technique of repeating a question until either you get an answer,
or it becomes obvious that the person questioned is evading the issue
and will never answer it, is a well-known debating technique. One of
the UK's more prominent journalists used it to great effect against
then home Secretary Michael Howard, asking him "did you threaten to
overrule him?" twelve times. As with you, it was fun to watch the man
wriggling on the hook. It is one of the most popular things that show
ever broadcast.

Yep, you are acting like your traditional infantile self.

LOL! My kids have outgrown the business of raking up ancient history
to deflect attention away from current misdeeds, but the youngest is
eight years old so that's only to be expected.

Keep digging, with luck you'll reach Australia. They have a helmet
law there, you'll feel right at home.

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:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:31:33 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I was revering to the reporter (the author of the newspaper article),
not the author of the paper the reporter mentioned.

No you were not, you were referring to the person who merely alerted
the author of the article to the existence of the paper. As you would
know, if you had bothered to read the article before rubbishing it.

Oh come off it. He mentioned Burdett prominently enough that Burdett
was obviously a significant source. If you had bothered to read the
post you first responded to, you'd know that - it was clearly stated.

Avery was *not* the author of the article - and this is obvious if you
read it. You rubbished the article without reading it.

I didn't say he was the author, and you know it. I said the reporter
mentioned Avery prominently enough to suggest that Avery was quite
likely a major source for the reporter's article. It is really
childish of you to go around pretending I said something that I
clearly didn't. Your continual distortions, however, say a lot
about your credibility or honesty (take your pick).

Looking in a mirror, Guy?

Oh, good question. Better review the available facts:

These are not "facts". They are mere conjectures on your part.

Have you read the article under discussion?
Chapman: Yes.
Zaumen: No.

You have no idea what I read and what I don't as I simply don't
publish my reading habits on usenet. Pretending otherwise is simply
one of the sleazy tactics you anti-helmet fanatics have been using for
years.

The history is pretty amusing. Someone else, David C., stated that he
did not bother to read Thompson and Riviera's paper because the points
David was making had nothing to do with that paper and that, if it was
as bad a paper as these guys claimed, it wouldn't be worth his time to
read it. Then the anti-helmet camp attributed David's statement to
me, distorting it and expanding its scope significantly in the
process. And they'd persist even when I pointed out that David had
made that statement, not me.

Then you or one of the others blamed me for not paying some $30
dollars to download one particular article or go to a library to read
it on a national holiday when the libraries were closed. And you took
a statement about not seeing it within the first 30 minutes of reading
an abstract as a statement that was "obviously" true at any point of
time thereafter.

Basically, you people are a group of liars - you post statements the
truth of which you have absolutely no way of knowing, you distort
what anyone else says to fit your agenda, and resort to every other
sleazy tactic you can think of.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:33:16 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy?
The only time I use cut and paste is when it is necessary to get the
message across. f your posts today.
In your case it is often - cut and paste is pretty much all I see
from you.

So you say. If you did not go to such enormous lengths to avoid
anything which might challenge your cherished assumptions you would
have a somewhat different experience, of course.

English translation: Guy rants and rants and posts cut-and-paste job
after cut-and-paste job whenever anyone disagrees with his silly
opinions. He'll start off a post by being insulting, and then whines
when someone ignored everything else in it. What a child.

rest of Guy's rant snipped.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:28:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

The only time I use cut and paste is when it is necessary to get the
message across. f your posts today.
In your case it is often - cut and paste is pretty much all I see
from you.
So you say. If you did not go to such enormous lengths to avoid
anything which might challenge your cherished assumptions you would
have a somewhat different experience, of course.

English translation: Guy rants and rants and posts cut-and-paste job
after cut-and-paste job whenever anyone disagrees with his silly
opinions.

Hmmm. I just Googled for zaumen & guy & paste and found a number of
instances where you accused me of using cut-and-paste (technically
wrong: you mean copy and paste). I opened ten at random to check the
validity of your claim:

- eight which were not copy and paste (i.e. the text was different in
the two posts to which you referred)

- one which was a reiteration (though not copied and pasted, as
slightly rephrased) of a valid question you had failed to answer

- one which was a request for you to provide evidence of the text
which had allegedly been copied and pasted - needless to say there was
none and you therefore failed to provide the evidence.

So, I think we need a bit more evidence of this repeated use of copy
and paste, especially if we allow its use where a relevant question
has not been answered and still requires an answer - a technique for
whose validity I cite the authority of Mr Paxman.

As to silly opinions, well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Mine is based on having read rather a lot of research. To denounce it
as silly is - well, silly, especially as it is shared by such
illuminati as Mayer Hillman, John Adams, Gerald Wilde and Jean-René
Carré, Director Emeritus of INRETS.

I don't think it's all that silly to be of the opinion that under an
inch of polystyrene foam lack the power to protect against motor
vehicle impacts, for example. If this opinion is silly, it is
remarkable that the technical director of the UK's major cycle helmet
testing lab shares it. He has even written an article for a leading
helmet realist website:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1038

It is a remarkable thing: so many of the people whose views you
dismiss as silly or vexatious appear to have made an in-depth study of
the subject, obtaining significant volumes of data, often at
considerable personal expense.

Many of us, probably most in fact, started pro-helmet and have
modified our opinions in response to the mounting evidence that their
benefit is greatly exaggerated. There is a bit of a contrast in this
thread where you apparently can't even bring yourself to read a news
report if it references someone whose opinions you dislike. A curious
idea: those who have read the evidence are silly, the one who refuses
to read a second-hand report of the evidence is not. How does that
work, I wonder?

He'll start off a post by being insulting, and then whines
when someone ignored everything else in it. What a child.

So you say. But it is a striking fact that in this thread the only
evidence of insults and whining are coming from you. For example,
describing my opinions as silly despite the fact that they are clearly
the result of having read a very great deal of research.

rest of Guy's rant snipped.

Translation: "Tra la la la, I'm not listening".

But like the bear said: you're not here for the hunting, are you?

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:25:25 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Avery was *not* the author of the article - and this is obvious if you
read it. You rubbished the article without reading it.

I didn't say he was the author, and you know it.

Two posts up you said: "I was revering to the reporter (the author of
the newspaper article), not the author of the paper the reporter
mentioned."

The reporter in this case was not Avery Burdett, but Carlton Reid,
editor of Bicycle Business, a pro-helmet specialist cycling
journalist.

You lose.

Better review the available facts:
These are not "facts". They are mere conjectures on your part.

Have you read the article under discussion?
Chapman: Yes.
Zaumen: No.

You have no idea what I read and what I don't

Actually we do. Your misidentification of the author of the piece,
your statement "I presume that is the major source the author used"
when it is clear that the major part of the article is a quote form
the abstract of Curnow's paper, your comment "Anything that starts
with "boffins" is not worth reading" and the way you latched straight
onto Burdett rather than Curnow, who is the author of the paper, or
Reid, the author of the story, is of course not conclusive. But I
think any jury would convict based on circumstantial evidence this
strong.

I simply don't publish my reading habits on usenet.

Er, actually you do. For example you referred to not having read a
paper because the library was closed for July 4 (have you read it yet?
I think they are probably open again by now).

Pretending otherwise is simply
one of the sleazy tactics you anti-helmet fanatics have been using for
years.

Let's just pause for a moment to savour that statement. Bill Zaumen,
who has just been attacking my "silly opinions" and "being insulting"
is saying that I am an "anti-helmet fanatic" who uses "sleazy
tactics".

So, am I an anti-helmet fanatic? That should be easy enough to clear
up. Have I ever told anyone not to wear a helmet? Can't remember any
such incident. Have I spent time helping my friends' and neighbours'
kids to fit their helmets correctly? Yes, just today. Do I own a
helmet and use one at least some of the time? Now that you mention
it, yes, and there are pictures on my website to prove it.

The evidence is looking a bit thin.

The history is pretty amusing. Someone else, David C., stated that he
did not bother to read Thompson and Riviera's paper because the points
David was making had nothing to do with that paper and that, if it was
as bad a paper as these guys claimed, it wouldn't be worth his time to
read it. Then the anti-helmet camp attributed David's statement to
me, distorting it and expanding its scope significantly in the
process. And they'd persist even when I pointed out that David had
made that statement, not me.

Well it's good to know that you are now up to speed on that study.
What do you make of the differences between the groups shown in Table
2? And particularly Table 3? Do you think that the group in Column 3
is a better model for that in Column 1, or the group in Column 2? I'm
assuming your mis-spelling of one author's name and omitting another
is a typo, not merely ignorance.

Basically, you people are a group of liars - you post statements the
truth of which you have absolutely no way of knowing, you distort
what anyone else says to fit your agenda, and resort to every other
sleazy tactic you can think of.

Whereas you would never dream of distorting anything to fit your
agenda (for example by calling people anti-helmet when they are merely
sceptical of the grandiose claims made by some), or engaging in sleazy
tactics (such as referring to the arrest history of a poster in an
attempt to discredit him). Oh, wait...

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:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:25:25 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Avery was *not* the author of the article - and this is obvious if you
read it. You rubbished the article without reading it.

I didn't say he was the author, and you know it.

Two posts up you said: "I was revering to the reporter (the author of
the newspaper article), not the author of the paper the reporter
mentioned."

The reporter in this case was not Avery Burdett, but Carlton Reid,
editor of Bicycle Business, a pro-helmet specialist cycling
journalist.

You lose.

Liar - I *never* said the author was Burdett. I said that particular
author *mentioned* Burdett prominently enough to be obviously a key
source for his article. Go back and read the original post.

rest of Guy's post snipped - he's in cut-and-paste/rant mode again
Oh, and his other posts will be dropped today too - I've more important
things to do than deal with pages and pages of lies.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:43:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I didn't say he was the author, and you know it.

Two posts up you said: "I was revering to the reporter (the author of
the newspaper article), not the author of the paper the reporter
mentioned."

The reporter in this case was not Avery Burdett, but Carlton Reid,
editor of Bicycle Business, a pro-helmet specialist cycling
journalist.

Liar - I *never* said the author was Burdett. I said that particular
author *mentioned* Burdett prominently enough to be obviously a key
source for his article. Go back and read the original post.

Nice straw man, I wonder if it will fall over?

In your earlier post you said, and I quote: "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."

So you are treating the article as if it is describing a paper by
Burdett, or as if Burdett is the major source. This is false, as is
apparent from reading the article. You are also treating as if it was
written by someone you would characterise as anti-helmet. This is
also false, Carlton is strongly pro-helmet. Both these facts are
obvious if you read the piece properly, which you have now admitted
you did not.

Quite why you feel it necessary to argue the toss about an article you
admit to not having read properly, which in any case is merely a brief
description of a far more interesting document which you have not
addressed in any respect at all, is something of a mystery. Unless,
like the bear said, you are "not here for the hunting at all."

rest of Guy's post snipped - he's in cut-and-paste/rant mode again

And here is a space for you to identify the text which was copied and
pasted between the two posts:



There you go.

Here's the space for you to detail the text which was in language
sufficiently immoderate to be called a rant:



You can use the Enter key to add some more if you need.

Oh, and his other posts will be dropped today too - I've more important
things to do than deal with pages and pages of lies.

Translation: "Tra la la la, I'm not listening."

Here is the space for you to identify the "pages and pages of lies":



Happy to be of service.

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

Dave Larrington wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

If you want to see "abusive" look up the ant-helmet group's posts.

Helmets for ants, eh? Good idea.


:-) Off-topic pause for refreshment:

I'm reading this on Google Groups. Google makes its money from ads in
a sidebar at the right of the posts. Their software puts in ads
relevant to the discussion.

As I type this, there are three ads: two for motorcycle helmets, one
for an ant extermination company!


Note: If the ants do wear helmets, I suppose they'll "save their
lives" if we try to stomp on them, eh?


OK, enough distraction. Back to watching Bill Zaumen make a fool of
himself!

Carry on, Bill. You're fun to watch!

- Frank Krygowski

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:43:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I didn't say he was the author, and you know it.

Two posts up you said: "I was revering to the reporter (the author of
the newspaper article), not the author of the paper the reporter
mentioned."

The reporter in this case was not Avery Burdett, but Carlton Reid,
editor of Bicycle Business, a pro-helmet specialist cycling
journalist.

Liar - I *never* said the author was Burdett. I said that particular
author *mentioned* Burdett prominently enough to be obviously a key
source for his article. Go back and read the original post.

Nice straw man, I wonder if it will fall over?

You don't even know what a straw man is, given that comment.

In your earlier post you said, and I quote: "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."

Yep - I've had numerous "discussions" with Burdett on this very newsgroup
as a search of the archives will show, and he is in fact very biased
(and, like you, posted mostly personal attacks.) The author (the
reporter) did in fact mention Burdett prominently. Unless you think
Burdett was assumed to be talking to himself, it should be obvious that
the reporter/author I was refering to and Burdett are separate
individuals.

So much for your fabrications about Burdett being the author of the
article I was commenting on.

pages and pages of cut-and-paste or otherwise randomly generated
garbage snipped.

Translation: "Tra la la la, I'm not listening."

Back into your timeout - I've better things to do than to reply to
each and every rant from some character with the emotional maturity
of a child. Your other posts that just arrived will be ignored.
I've too much to do today in any case.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

OK, enough distraction. Back to watching Bill Zaumen make a fool of
himself!

Krygowksi, go f___ yourself. As anyone can tell, Guy is simply
lying through his teeth and you are jumping in due to your decades
long grudge.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB