|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 13 May 2004 16:14:14 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote in message : I know what a straw man is - it's where you attribute to me the view that helmets cause rotational brain injuries ;-) If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct me toward Bill Curnow's paper? Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it. And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I actually comment on in my original post? Bill's paper is the main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all. And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument. Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a smart-ass for effect? Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post, the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries? Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read Curnow. And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what good would reading Curnow have done, again? Reading Curnow had no effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the calims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for comprehension.) I am making an natural conclusion from your own actions, not just making up something out of thin air. So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written more. Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself look like an idiot. Pay careful attention next time - you could save yourself a lot of grief if you keep your smart-assed quips to yourself. To me it implied the question: have you read the report? 100% Bull****. Is your telepathy always that inaccurate? It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it. Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries? If the answer is "none", then the report has no useful application to my original comment. Reading it will thus NOT enlighten. Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments to yourself. -- Bob Jones |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
Replying to Guy Jonesy wrote in part:
Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself look like an idiot. Pay careful attention next time - you could save yourself a lot of grief if you keep your smart-assed quips to yourself. Mr. Jonesy, We all enjoy a good skewering but now I can barely see you up there on your high horse. Relax dude! You claimed that there was no good evidence in support of the notion that bicycle helmets exacerbate rotational injuries. That may or may not be the case. If Curnow's paper is useless in this regard, does anybody know of any studies that have been done concerning helmets and rotational injuries? There must be some. Robert |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
On 17 May 2004 09:28:45 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message : If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct me toward Bill Curnow's paper? Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it. And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I actually comment on in my original post? Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to. Bill's paper is the main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all. And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument. Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a smart-ass for effect? No, the point was that the report is represented as saying that, but doesn't. What it says is that the prospective studies which seek to suggest that the reductions in serious and fatal injuries due to helmets will follow a similar pattern to minor injuries, is based on a lack of understanding of the mechanisms of brain injury. Which I found interesting. Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post, the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries? Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read Curnow. And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what good would reading Curnow have done, again? It would dispel the idea that Curnow claims that helmets play a significant role in increasing rotational injuries, and it would slo show that there is significant evidence that rotational forces play a significant role in serious and fatal brain injury (an idea now considered mainstream by those studying car crash injuries). Helmets can do nothing to mitigate these forces. Reading Curnow had no effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the calims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for comprehension.) Please try to stop being needlessly offensive. So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written more. Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself look like an idiot. No, I asked if you had read the report, FFS, because I knew I had a copy of the sodding thing! It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it. Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries? It doesn't claim to do so. What others may have claimed on its behalf I can't say. Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments to yourself. Next time chill out, you'll give yourself an ulcer. 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 Washington University |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 17 May 2004 09:28:45 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote in message : If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct me toward Bill Curnow's paper? Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it. And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I actually comment on in my original post? Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to. Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc. Bill's paper is the main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all. And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument. Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a smart-ass for effect? No, the point was that the report is represented as saying that, but doesn't. So, it's a paper neutral to my original argument, not really even addressing it at all, but somehow, *you* find it relevant. How odd. Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post, the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries? Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read Curnow. And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what good would reading Curnow have done, again? It would dispel the idea that Curnow claims that helmets play a significant role in increasing rotational injuries [snip] Wow. What was it that I said originally, again? How did your retort increase the level of understanding at all? None? Sheesh, you are an incredible asshole to go on and on and on like the damn paper means any ****ing thing. Reading Curnow had no effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the claims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for comprehension.) Please try to stop being needlessly offensive. Why in the hell should I do that? You obviously can't read, cannot understand it when it's written such that a two-year-old could get it, and continue to argue that the Curnow paper actually means any damn thing to anyone. You requesting any reduction in "being...offensive" is highly ironic, however. So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written more. Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself look like an idiot. No, I asked if you had read the report, FFS, because I knew I had a copy of the sodding thing! Again, why in **** would I want to read the damn thing? IT HAS NO DATA, AND IT HAS ONLY TANGENTIAL RELATION TO MY ORIGINAL POST! Is that loud enough for you, moron? It's not interesting. It has no useful, additional information. It does not enlighten. It does not add to the discussion. Are you getting the picture yet, or do I need to draw in crayon and speak in baby-talk? It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it. Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries? It doesn't claim to do so. So, it contributes nothing, and is neutral on my original comment of lack of evidence for helmets creating rotational injuries. Gotcha. What others may have claimed on its behalf I can't say. Since I claimed nothing on its behalf, this is a non sequitur. Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments to yourself. Next time chill out, you'll give yourself an ulcer. I'll chill out when smart-asses shut the hell up unless they have something useful to offer. I'm sure you'll remind me when (or if) that ever happens. Just to be completely clear, Curnow's paper was neither useful nor interesting. Are you clear, or do I need to use shorter words? -- Jonesy |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
On 18 May 2004 09:31:09 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message : And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I actually comment on in my original post? Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to. Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc. I can't be arsed to argue about it any more. 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 Washington University |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle helmet law can save lives
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 18 May 2004 09:31:09 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote in message : And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I actually comment on in my original post? Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to. Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc. I can't be arsed to argue about it any more. Which, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why you bothered *in the first place*!!! -- Jonesy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Those bicycle builders big mistake! | Garrison Hilliard | General | 30 | December 23rd 03 06:03 AM |
Bicycle Roadside Assistance Clubs? | Ablang | General | 2 | November 12th 03 09:52 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
A Bicycle Story | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | September 7th 03 01:40 PM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |