A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To sock or not to sock?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old May 6th 11, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tșm ShermȘn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 12:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
TÂșm ShermÂȘnℱ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 12:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
TÂșm ShermÂȘnℱ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default 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 ShermÂȘnℱ
" 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 Lidditeℱ 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  
Old May 7th 11, 12:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
TÂșm ShermÂȘnℱ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 02:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Tom Lake[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 03:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
TÂșm ShermÂȘnℱ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default 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 ShermÂȘnℱ
" 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  
Old May 7th 11, 03:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Tom Lake[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 03:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Tom Lake[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default 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  
Old May 7th 11, 03:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,free.UseNet
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.