Helmet propaganda debunked

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:26:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about
the reporter's judgement.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. See below:

I've seen enough of Burdett's posts on this newgroup to have some
real doubts about a reporter who talks about some paper but quotes
Burdett, whose biases are obvious from what he's posted here.

Ah, so now it's unnecessary to read the research simply because it is
reported by someone who quotes someone whose views you disagree with.
Fascinating. Not a terribly good basis for informed judgment, though.

You don't know what I've read. It is not like you have a webcam
in my home to spy on me.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now
know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study.

Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I
had read it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
ou have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)


So you _haven't_ read it?

I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes
will simply claim I haven't no matter what.

Your posts suggests you haven't read it:

"...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author
used..."

The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as
prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've
had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything
he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased.

and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm or
deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would be a
case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see.

I didn't jump to any conclusions about the paper. I made a statement
about a reporter's article. I'd make the same sort of statement if a
reporter prominantly quoted George Bush in an article about a paper
evaluating the effectivenss of condoms.

It is one of their
traditional tactics. You can even quote the relevant text from
an article and they will *still* claim you haven't read it. Check
the archives and you can find some examples of this.


So merely because the article - which you may or may not have read - was
introduced by someone with whom you have disagreed in the past, you can
claim it is of no value? Less charitable people might call that, well,
"jumping to a conclusion".

There is history to this discussion going back over 10 years. If *you*
want to avoid "jumping to a conclusion" I suggest you go through all the
relevant posts before commenting. You'll see cases where I quoted
an article verbatim and these guys *still* denied that I had read it.
You'll also see them using the "big lie" technique - repeating a
statement over and over in the hopes that people will forget who said
it and eventually assume it is true.

Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more
important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends
out.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:18:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about
the reporter's judgement.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. See below:

I've seen enough of Burdett's posts on this newgroup to have some
real doubts about a reporter who talks about some paper but quotes
Burdett, whose biases are obvious from what he's posted here.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Again.

The article is an announcement of a newly published study. Avery's
sole involvement is as messenger. The piece by Carlton Reid in
BikeBiz is mostly by Carlton or quoting the study itself.

Obviously you are so determined to retain your beliefs intact that you
will not run the risk of having them challenged. No surprises there.

Ah, so now it's unnecessary to read the research simply because it is
reported by someone who quotes someone whose views you disagree with.
Fascinating. Not a terribly good basis for informed judgment, though.

You don't know what I've read. It is not like you have a webcam
in my home to spy on me.

Ah, but I know some things you haven't read, because you have openly
admitted to not having read them.

Your paranoia is legendary, of course.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now
know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study.

Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I
had read it.

You confirmed, by what you wrote, that you had not read the report in
BikeBiz. Since you had not done so, you would be hard-pressed to know
what the study was. I have read both the article and the study. Have
you?

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:28:39 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as
prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've
had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything
he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased.

The author is Carlton Reid, editor of Bicycle Business magazine, a
leading bike trade journal. He is a cyclist, and as a journalist
specialises almost exclusively in cycling. He is strongly pro-helmet.

You lose, sucker.

Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more
important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends
out.

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Or reading, apparently.

An unusually worthless piece of input from Zaumen, really; nothing to
say about either the study or the article. Why not just post "I hate
Burdett" and be done with it, Bill? That way at least you won't look
like a complete idiot by trying to defend your irrational refusal to
read a story in a trade mag simply because it quotes someone you
disagree with on religious grounds.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes
will simply claim I haven't no matter what.

Your posts suggests you haven't read it:

"...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author
used..."

The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as
prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've
had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything
he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased.

Many would say that his "bias" is correct; he certainly has a powerful set
of facts and studies to support him.
He does not, I notice, suggest (as you appear to do) that people who might
have an interest in the subject avoid information which

a) has a provenance of impeccable scientific credence; and
b) does not agree with your own point of view (sometimes short-termed as
"bias").


and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm
or
deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would
be a
case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see.

I didn't jump to any conclusions about the paper. I made a statement
about a reporter's article.

But you made your disparaging statement without reading the article, or the
source on which it was based - you just saw the name of someone with whom
you claim to disagree, and because of that you make your conclusion that the
article was not worth reading. Is that not an unsupportable jump?

Oh, and I'm flushing Guy's reply to your post unread. I've more
important things to do than to respond to each post that moron sends
out.

Is this another case of not seeing what you don't wish to see?

And why do you feel the need to buttress your arguments with name-calling -
surely if you believe what you say has merit this is not necessary!

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article.

[ ...snipping...]

You don't know what I've read. It is not like you have a webcam
in my home to spy on me.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now
know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study.

Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I
had read it.


Then why did you say in your original post:

"...and I presume that [ Avery Burdett ]is the major source the author
used."

If you had indeed read the article you would know that Burdett was not the
major source used, and so (unless you deliberately intended to lie) would
not have posted what you did.

Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have
forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who
did
nothing other than send out a press release.


Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now
know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study.

Another of your numerous lies - I did not confirm nor deny if I
had read it.


Well, this ought to be simple to clear up. Bill, just say whether you
read it or not.

It did look, from your first post, as though you hadn't. Nothing
you've posted since has said you have - and it all matches what someone
who hadn't read it, and now doesn't wish that to be known, would say.

And being abusive doesn't help your position either...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:18:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
I've seen enough of Burdett's posts on this newgroup to have some
real doubts about a reporter who talks about some paper but quotes
Burdett, whose biases are obvious from what he's posted here.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Again.

snip

Repeating yourself in your continual cut-and-paste jobs, Guy?

I'll flush the rest of your posts today. You are obviously trolling
to restart an argument from last summer. Is it getting to be the
season again or something for you to go on yet another of your
infantile helmet rants? Or are you getting tired of arguing with
Mike Vandeman and are looking for another person to bother? Even
Vandeman is an improvement over you.

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

It did look, from your first post, as though you hadn't. Nothing
you've posted since has said you have - and it all matches what someone
who hadn't read it, and now doesn't wish that to be known, would say.

I didn't say anything about the paper. I simply pointed out that the
reporter of a newspaper article quoted a known crackpot. Just look
up Burdett's posts on this newsgroup, particularly when he was angry
at me.

And being abusive doesn't help your position either...

If you want to see "abusive" look up the ant-helmet group's posts.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes
will simply claim I haven't no matter what.

Your posts suggests you haven't read it:

"...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author
used..."

The author is a reporter, and most reporters who quote a source as
prominently as he did got that "source" to explain it to him. I've
had numerous "discussions" with Burdett and would not trust anything
he said about bicycles helmets - he is very biased.

Many would say that his "bias" is correct; he certainly has a powerful set
of facts and studies to support him.

He doesn't. The guy quite frankly doesn't know what he is talking about.
I suspect you don't either. It's all been covered before. Just check
the archives over the past 10 or 15 years.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB