Helmets: Chapman Should Put His Money Where His Mouth Is

Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false information in
order to obtain funding which she should not properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against the founder
of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the founder of
a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of lying bike-haters,
on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate. Both Chapman and Angela Lee live in the same town
(Reading), so it's time for Chapman to challenge Angela Lee to a
debate, say in the Town Hall. He could contact her directly, or I'm
sure he could do it through the Reading Post (who recently featured an
article on Angela Lee), or the Reading Chronicle. If Angela Lee
refused the challenge then Chapman could claim that as a victory of
sorts.

But what is surely indisputable is that if Chapman really believes
what he says about helmets and Angela Lee, then he should have no
problem putting forward such a challenge. If he refuses to do so then
one has to wonder why, and his comments about Ms Lee should be
considered in that light. If such a debate takes place then I will go
along, video it and put it online.

Over to you, Guy. And please don't pretend that you haven't seen
this: no-one has fallen for that nonsense for years. Just yesterday
you made a post that you couldn't possibly have done unless you'd
directly seen what I'd written.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false information in
order to obtain funding which she should not properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against the founder
of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the founder of
a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of lying bike-haters,
on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

BugBear

On 03/03/2011 16:49, Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false information in
order to obtain funding which she should not properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against the founder
of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the founder of
a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of lying bike-haters,
on the other hand...

Would 'the leader of a lying bunch of bike haters' be someone whose
opinion differs from his?

I wonder why he feels it necessary to write some vitriolic bollox about
the poor woman?

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mar 3, 5:28*pm, bugbear wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false information in
order to obtain funding which she should not properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against the founder
of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the founder of
a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of lying bike-haters,
on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

Oh really? Please explain.

I could pulverise you in a public debate about speed cameras. How
about it? Thought not. Just like Mary Williams and countless other
irrational scamera supporters mysteriously shied away from debate
challenges from Paul Smith, who they were quite happy to call
"barking", so why were they so reluctant to attempt to prove it?
Maybe, just maybe, they know that their "cameras save lives" nonsense
doesn't stack up, and their camera support is due to vested interests?

FWIW I think Chapman *may* be right about helmets (note that I'm not
pretending to think helmets help just to persecute cyclists, in the
same way that he pretends to think cameras help just to persecute
motorists...I figured it was best to be the bigger person and not be
dog-in-the-manger like Chapman). I would like the truth, whatever it
is, to be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt, and I think a public
debate would be a great way to do it. If Chapman is confident enough
that Ms Lee is being dishonest and has the wrong motives then how
could he think he would fail at outdebating her? Why would he not
want to challenge her? Is it just because I've suggested it or is he
secretly afraid that he'd lose?

Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false
information in order to obtain funding which she should not
properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against
the founder of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the
founder of a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of
lying bike-haters, on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

I don't see the point in a contest of charisma, persuasion or rhetorical
tricks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/03/2011 19:31, Steve Walker wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false
information in order to obtain funding which she should not
properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against
the founder of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the
founder of a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of
lying bike-haters, on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

I don't see the point in a contest of charisma, persuasion or rhetorical
tricks.

My limited past experience of stacking rationality up against emotive
"think of the children, if only one life can be saved" bull**** has not
left me with any great desire to try it again. Basically Lee says (in as
many words, if memory serves) that anyone who is not an advocate of
helmet compulasion is an advocate of children dying and being seriously
brain injured. There is no way of debating wiht that kind of person.
When I discussed the issue with Dr Curran we had a very civil exchange;
I'd debate him any time.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNcBdMAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/fU8IAIlon56YNsyGgPZA1cDsCZCW
MfrPazezKgSB4ffbNJy8HGLZueV0yupEXNPzNAQCDdPeOPHzL1 mQWfXwLTgmb6JM
iOPkoqvEt3hPO6mutK4LpmTaWOY/e5B4VvYwNC88LqJ1WrHn/KqDn2H3QmvvH5ot
IIHYCQHlqTTSFhRCXst0nC5wSgfTFMQKryFdKODiGvI2BGSTzH ijq9hG5yCPcit4
vKmY/pwp6sLtXaP7Am5cfU/hMA+edCZoESidWrLDlE6S/oURJ78SSiH1x0CLlOo3
khanB2hvz6dWxyMdDShJWruDXgvApptTdq9jroeMlapm+qTJQd Kd8cKpsy1aHbQ=
=I+6w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/03/2011 19:31, Steve Walker wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false
information in order to obtain funding which she should not
properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against
the founder of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the
founder of a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of
lying bike-haters, on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

I don't see the point in a contest of charisma, persuasion or rhetorical
tricks.

My limited past experience of stacking rationality up against emotive
"think of the children, if only one life can be saved" bull**** has not
left me with any great desire to try it again. Basically Lee says (in as
many words, if memory serves) that anyone who is not an advocate of
helmet compulasion is an advocate of children dying and being seriously
brain injured. There is no way of debating wiht that kind of person.
When I discussed the issue with Dr Curran we had a very civil exchange;
I'd debate him any time.

When you take down that cruel attack page, you can take a step towards the
high moral ground.

I don't think you appreciate the shadow it casts on the objectives you are
trying to achieve. Any politician or senior policy type who wanders into
your helmet pages would emerge shaking their head and thinking that you were
a spiteful and deluded person. I don't think you are, and I don't think you
want people to think that of you.

It should be enough to say that as a paediatric nurse who has dealt with
terribly injured children, her motivation is narrowly focused on prevention
of immediate traumatic harm, and she doesn't see some of the wider public
health and social policy factors. That places her views in context,
without the need to mock her body shape or accuse her of being manipulative
and shroud-waving.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Nuxx Bar wrote:

I would like the truth, whatever it
is, to be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt

Why don't you start with "what am I?", "why am I here?", "where
exactly is 'here' anyway?" and work up from there?

Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:28 pm, wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") has recently had the following
post to URCM rejected for abuse (I've snipped all the useless PGP
rubbish):

On 02/03/2011 21:47, Steve Walker wrote:
Are you saying that Angela Lee knowingly propagates false information in
order to obtain funding which she should not properly be entitled to?
That would be a very serious allegation to publicly make against the founder
of a children's safety charity.

I'm sure Marc would not have made such a suggestion about the founder of
a children's safety charity. The leader of a bunch of lying bike-haters,
on the other hand...

If he thinks that Angela Lee (of BHIT) is indeed the "leader of a
bunch of lying bike-haters", and so obviously and deliberately
misusing statistics, then he should be able to pulverise her in a
public debate.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

Oh really? Please explain.

Public debates aren't about facts.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:

Public debates aren't about facts.


Should it be debated on TV or radio?
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php...=kennedy-nixon

Tony