|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Lying by Modifying Quoted Material
On 5/6/2011 9:30 AM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 14:29:59 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee wrote: Maybe you should configure it correctly then. No, it's an operator thing. Absolutely not. "everyone" would include non-smokers, and they certainly shouldn't quit, as that would entail taking it up first. Argumentative today, aren't we? As to your first sentence: Phil, in your life, you must have met people before who just heard a "different drummer". These people don't do what you think they *should* do. I am just one of those people, Phil. It's OK, friend... I'm not going to demand that you configure your reader to match my preferences; I just don't plan to conform to yours. In fact, I deliberately configured it thus to pique those who like to write their reply into the OP's text[...] So you effectively lie every time you respond to an interleaved post. This indicates a serious anti-social personality trait. -- Tșm ShermȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 10:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 6, 10:46 am, Tom wrote: On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank wrote: Oh. Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive! What have you read on this subject? Do you mean on the subject of research methodology? No, on the subject of helmet efficacy. Also on the more fundamental, related subject: realistically evaluating the risk of serious head injury while cycling. I got bored with the silly helmet topic long ago... do as you please. ... and the fox said "I'm not interested in those grapes anyway. They're probably sour." - Aesop - Frank Krygowski +6.02x10^23 -- TÂșm ShermÂȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 7:15 AM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:56:23 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech TÂșm ShermÂȘnâą " wrote: We have been over the problems with Scuffham changing conclusions many times. Comparing rates over 4 decades apart is hardly them same as comparing consecutive years before and after Lidditeâą mandatory foam bicycle hat use implementation. More falsified quotes from Tom Lake, due to anti-social software programming. My point was that studies on the efficacy of protective clothing span a wide range of findings. By carefully choosing findings that support *my* side of the discussion and dismissing those which tend not to, I can "prove" just about anything. That tactic isn't new to studies of protective clothing. In fact, any topic that doesn't lend itself to an experimental method (abortion, the death penalty, gun control, and auto seat belts come to mind) will tend to that type of debate. Scuffham finds helmets don't work and you wave his work like the US flag at Ground Zero. Later, he looks at more data and finds something else. "That study is INVALID!" you say. I say that whether a study is valid or not depends on whether or not it supports your prejudice, not on its data and methods. Obviously Scuffham caved to political pressure. Duh. But, then... having been around Usenet a few days, I expected that. In a day or so, I'll move on. I can only argue about something as trivial as this for a short time. Do not let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. -- TÂșm ShermÂȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 8:42 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...] Bugger off then. You've had your troll. +6.02x10^23 -- TÂșm ShermÂȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On May 6, 1:12*pm, Tom Lake wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:54:12 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank Krygowski wrote: Statistics can (and do) show that ordinary cycling does not impose any unusual risk of serious head injury, despite propaganda to the contrary. *And statistics can (and do) show that widespread adoption of bike helmets has not had a beneficial effect on serious head injury rates. *Really, that's all that's needed to adequately understand this issue. But if you'd like more, an examination of helmet design and certification standards, plus some knowledge of physics and physiology, give good understanding of why bike helmets are likely to be ineffective. *You persist in trying to change topics. *If you really want to discuss smoking or handgun safety devices, you might start a different thread. Well, we could discuss the psychology of those who: 1) *fail to study a topic, yet 2) *give advice and solicit debate from those who have studied the topic, and then 3) say "I'm getting bored" instead of "I have much to learn." Frank, "Ordinary cycling does not impose any unusual risk of serious head injury," is known as a null hypothesis. * Sorry, but no. It's a report of findings from examinations of data. (And please note, your clumsy attempt to rephrase it as a hypothesis omitted a very important part of my statement, the word "unusual.") Actually, "There is no correlation between ordinary cycling and elevated risk of serious head injury," would be how I'd phrase it if I planned to publish my findings... :-) You're a long way from publishing any findings, Tom. For one thing, you're too far behind on the reading - or IOW, you don't know nearly enough about the topic. For another thing, your clumsy hypothesis is a tautology. There's _some_ correlation between elevated risk of head injury and cycling. And motoring. And walking for transportation. And descending stairs (a very strong one, that last); and jogging... Need I go on? But back to this discussion: You keep trying to retreat into topics you _may_ know more about (like smoking) or to hide behind definitions of terms we already know (like "null hypothesis"). Those tactics won't work. What you need is a full retreat, then a thorough study of real-world data, plus some critical analysis of the helmet promotion and helmet skeptic research. Many of us have done that, and many helmet skeptics have adopted that position based on what we learned. And BTW, if you really do read and review research for a living, as you claim, your apparent assumption that one study (say Scuffham 2) is as good as another (say, Scuffham 1) is strange indeed! Seems you're claiming your job is worthless! - Frank Krygowski |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Should we keep arguing about helmets forever?
On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:55:53 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tșm ShermȘn
°_° " wrote: You are wrong. Part of my writing is line breaks. Please desist in this false quotation, as it violates basic standards of decency in discourse.The early deaths will save on retirement costs. Well, Tom, calling someone a "liar" for trimming extra levels of redundantly quoted text is a little over the top, don't you think? How does that behavior square with "basic standards of decency in discourse"? Since there all of the feelings of indecency and dishonesty over my news reader's settings, perhaps we should simply go our separate ways? I see no point in a long flame war, anyway. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Should we keep arguing about bicycle foam hats forever?
On 5/6/2011 8:43 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:55:53 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech TÂșm ShermÂȘnâą " wrote: You are wrong. Part of my writing is line breaks. Please desist in this false quotation, as it violates basic standards of decency in discourse.The early deaths will save on retirement costs. More falsified quotes from Tom Lake, due to anti-social software programming. Well, Tom, calling someone a "liar" for trimming extra levels of redundantly quoted text is a little over the top, don't you think? How does that behavior square with "basic standards of decency in discourse"? Your "mistake" was pointed out and you were politely asked to correct it. You not only failed to do the morally correct action, but responded with the anti-social and braggart "In fact, I deliberately configured it thus to pique those who like to write their reply into the OP's text..." Being proud of being both wrong and immoral is not decent. Since there all of the feelings of indecency and dishonesty over my news reader's settings, perhaps we should simply go our separate ways? I see no point in a long flame war, anyway. I enjoy flame wars, the longer the better. You may not. However, if you stay around, I will continue to point out your incorrect behavior. -- TÂșm ShermÂȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Are we obsessive?
On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote: Sorry, but no. It's a report of findings from examinations of data. (And please note, your clumsy attempt to rephrase it as a hypothesis omitted a very important part of my statement, the word "unusual.") :-) You're a long way from publishing any findings, Tom. For one thing, you're too far behind on the reading - or IOW, you don't know nearly enough about the topic. For another thing, your clumsy hypothesis is a tautology. There's _some_ correlation between elevated risk of head injury and cycling. And motoring. And walking for transportation. And descending stairs (a very strong one, that last); and jogging... Need I go on? But back to this discussion: You keep trying to retreat into topics you _may_ know more about (like smoking) or to hide behind definitions of terms we already know (like "null hypothesis"). Those tactics won't work. What you need is a full retreat, then a thorough study of real-world data, plus some critical analysis of the helmet promotion and helmet skeptic research. Many of us have done that, and many helmet skeptics have adopted that position based on what we learned. And BTW, if you really do read and review research for a living, as you claim, your apparent assumption that one study (say Scuffham 2) is as good as another (say, Scuffham 1) is strange indeed! Seems you're claiming your job is worthless! Actually, the word "unusual" isn't important at all; if you disagree with my editing, then put it back. It neither hurts nor helps. The really important word I edited out was the term: "impose" which may be read as "cause" and that's the biggest no-no you can get with post facto data. Neither H0 nor H1 is, in and of itself, a tautology. The statement: "H0 or H1" is, by it's very design tautological; you show H1 by showing H0 to be false within an arbitrary delta interval of probability. That's what "p=0.05" means... the probability that this sample was chosen from the general population is less than or equal to 5%... so we're 95% sure we can dismiss H0, which, by the tautological design, implies H1. If p is above the threshold, then H0 might be true; we just don't know... which is why I argued when you suggested that H0 "had been shown" to be true because it never is. Frank, a "sceptic" doesn't spend his every waking hour posting about bicycle helmets. That's called obsessive behavior. Have you ever searched the archives of the cycling groups for your name and something about helmets? Do you know how many you have? Go look... it's impressive! I have never seen a study of anything that I couldn't criticize. I have never seen a study that said anything stronger than "If nothing happens, in 24 hours, it'll be tomorrow" that was not soundly criticized... that just goes with the turf. A study is "valid" if it follows accepted statistical methods and if the conclusions follow from the statistical analysis. They'll *all* have holes in 'em. If you want a perfect study, good luck; *I* have certainly never seen one... not even those with my moniker on 'em. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Yet more helmet argument!
On Fri, 06 May 2011 15:58:48 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Clinch
wrote: I suspect he means bicycle helmet effectiveness. So in other words you won't take the time, so you won't make the bet, so your stating you will bet is just bluster. If you're not going to do the reading at least have the integrity to admit you're not in a position to lecture those of us that have on what might be contained in the reading. Usenet bets are always bluster; actually, I prefer the term "rhetorical". I've seen brainless wagers keep a flame war alive for month after weary month while they cussed each other about how much and who held it. I volunteered; however, I certainly never saw any money. But I can lecture on any damn thing that pleases me. If it doesn't please you to read it, then don't. Fair enough? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
I got a thick skull, so I don't need no helmet!
My skull is Neanderthal thick, so I don't need no helmet!
And that's the way it is, folks. Arguing with someone who has a Neanderthal thick skull is just pointless. -- Phil W Lee phil lee-family.me.uk wrote: Tom Lake considered Thu, 05 May 2011 15:45:34 -0500 the perfect time to write: On Wed, 4 May 2011 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo wrote: Yep, he's snookered too. If he were as scrupulous about the data in prescribing helmets as he seems to think doctors are when prescribing drugs, he'd see that large-scale data demonstrate that cycle helmets do not pass the FDA's "safe and effective" standard. Like sugar pills, bicycle helmets are safe but ineffective. But where sugar pills have a placebo effect, bicycle helmets induce risk compensation. Not a good deal! I never mentioned drugs of any sort. Please restrict your rebuttal to that which I actually said. No study has ever shown that "bicycle helmets induce risk compensation" ... that's an absurd statement that is simply unsupportable by current data. No, that is incorrect. There are studies showing risk compensation as a result of foam hat use, and most worrying of all, that it occurs among motorists as well. I said that tobacco use has never been shown to *cause* health problems by experimental method. I say this because there has never been such an experimental study... there never will be, either. There will never be such a study of helmets, period. I doubt that you'd ever get a serious helmet study funded because, to most people, it's as obvious as gravity, so why spend millions proving the obvious? Yet they keep getting funded, because they still keep trying to find a credible method of producing the "right" result. I can point to the seatbelt debate on the auto groups, life jackets on the boating groups, and gun safety devices on the gun groups... they're all the same... another tempest in a teapot where the answer is obvious to anyone outside the debate. I am of that group; to me, it's a done deal. Ah, you've made up your mind to ignore the facts. Fair enough, but you should be aware that "s'obvious innit" is not generally held to be a supportable scientific argument. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sock it to me! | Scott | Racing | 3 | May 19th 10 06:34 AM |
Tubular tire sock seat bag | Sir Ridesalot | General | 2 | August 1st 06 11:29 AM |
Comedy Sock Puppet | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 6 | July 19th 04 11:00 AM |
Tail box/sock/pannier combo | Robert Haston | Recumbent Biking | 1 | July 5th 04 05:21 PM |
Winter sock recommendations? | Moi | Off Road | 1 | January 20th 04 06:49 PM |