published helmet research - not troll

"Tom Kunich" writes:

From last string of messages from Kunich:

Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive. If you
want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod .itd.earthlink.net.

Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
credible on this subject.

Next message:

Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

More lies from Kunich.

That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super dramatic
drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention from
you either.

He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
target.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:
From last string of messages from Kunich:
Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:


http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...094%24N%254.81
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

Next message:

Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

More lies from Kunich.

That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
you either.

He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.

Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:
From last string of messages from Kunich:
Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
concerned, you have no credibility.

If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod .itd.earthlink.net.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles

Your post may have been directed to a "fake cop" but what you said
about yourself was damning enough. I can see why you would want to
obfuscate though after you wrote, "I'll tell you what I think of this
legal system -- I back-handed my girlfriend 30 years ago. I was jailed
and had to pay a couple of thousand dollars bail to get out of jail."
It's right there in the URL I gave in an article that Google claims
you wrote (and I saw the original as well.)

Face it Kunich, you are simply abusive, apparently as abusive in real
life as you've been on usenet. And I even tried to be nice to you by
not quoting from the article directly until you tried to pretend it
was about something else altogether.

Rest of Kunich's drivel snipped.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:

Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.

Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.

Is this your usenet approach to "back handing?" Randy in fact has no
duty to participate in a usenet dicussion. His decision to ignore
usenet is possibly the distaste of having to deal with the likes of
you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
concerned, you have no credibility.

So what you're saying is that you are so in love with helmets that you
refuse to consider the possibility that any pro-helmet research could
possibly be wrong regardless of the questionable technique of adding poorly
documented data together and coming up with a preposterous finding (that
more children could have had their lives saved by helmets than were killed
in the time period.)

But please do continue the discussion Zauman, there's an entirely new
generation of posters who deserve to see you in action.

(Bill Z.) writes:

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes: From last string of
messages from Kunich:
Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
explain what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against anyone
who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you.
As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.

Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your behavior,
where you post continual personal attacks against anyone who disagrees
with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you. As far as I'm
concerned, you have no credibility.

So what you're saying is that you are so in love with helmets that you
refuse to consider the possibility that any pro-helmet research could
possibly be wrong regardless of the questionable technique of adding poorly
documented data together and coming up with a preposterous finding (that
more children could have had their lives saved by helmets than were killed
in the time period.)

What I'm saying is that you personally are one of the most abusive
people on usenet, particularly wen it comes to anyone disagreeing with
your pet peeves. Anyone can go back to the archives and look (or
for that matter, they can look at the URL I recently posted.)

In every post of yours it seems there isn't a single research
result showing a positive result for helmet use that you haven't
disparaged (insulting the authors' competence.) If I missed one
in your long and continual rants on the subject, then please post
a citation.

But please do continue the discussion Zauman, there's an entirely new
generation of posters who deserve to see you in action.

Your 12 year long grudge is noted. Should I post the URL again
where you described yourself "in action?"

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes: From last string of
messages from Kunich:
Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
explain what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against anyone
who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it suits you.
As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.

Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.

Nope. I only told them off after repeated abuse that continued for
over a month (or was it several months.) Eventually, I simply got fed
up with these bozos. And they were the only ones lying, which they
did repeatedly.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Bill Z.) writes:

Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes: From last string of
messages from Kunich:
Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet,"
he goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please
explain what is abusive about that.

I think anyone can go back to the archives and look at your
behavior, where you post continual personal attacks against
anyone who disagrees with you, lying though your teeth when it
suits you. As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility.

Looks sort of like pot-kettle-black there, Bill.

Nope. I only told them off after repeated abuse that continued for
over a month (or was it several months.) Eventually, I simply got
fed up with these bozos. And they were the only ones lying, which
they did repeatedly.

You seem very prone to accusing others that they are lying, Bill, as
well as insisting you are right on all topics.