Re: published helmet research - not troll

[Frank Krygowski]

patrick wrote:

> I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
> but I figured some of you might actually want to read
> real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski > writes:


> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
> of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
> make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
> without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
> supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
> groups."

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

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mitch Haley]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> In general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
> promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
> statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
> of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed. That claim exceeds
any made by Swart. Imagine a helmet that is 100% effective in preventing
brain injury. This 14x claim would still require that 93% of all fatal
crashes involve fatal brain injury with no other mortal wounds.
Gannett News printed the claim as if it were an established fact.

Mitch.

[Matt O'Toole]

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> patrick wrote:
>
> > I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
> > but I figured some of you might actually want to read
> > real research.
>
> There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.
>
> For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
> some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
> fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
> see citations at the page bottom.
>
> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
> citations listed there, too.
>
> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
> it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
> helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
> carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."
>
> Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
> scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
> general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
> promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
> statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
> of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.
>
> --
> --------------------+
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
> replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
>

[Matt O'Toole]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
> scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

> In
> general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
> promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
> statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
> skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."

Matt O.

[Frank Krygowski]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!

Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.

When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.

A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[Benjamin Lewis]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
> wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
> no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
> butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
> tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Tim McNamara]

(Bill Z.) writes:

> You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> wrote in message >:

>Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
>you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
>www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
>it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
>helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
>carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

And Randyt thinks that stopping using the Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson figure of 85% efficacy would be "unhelpful" despite it's
being derived by comparing entirely different populations and
ascribing all the difference to helmet use. In other words, he is a
True Believer :-)

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message >:

> He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
>disparages it.

No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

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

[Bill Z.]

Tim McNamara > writes:

> (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > You should note Krygowski's tactics.
>
> Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

Liar.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message >:
>
> > He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
> >disparages it.
>
> No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.
>

Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tim McNamara]

(Bill Z.) writes:

> Tim McNamara > writes:
>
>> (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>> > You should note Krygowski's tactics.
>>
>> Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.
>
> Liar.

Read your own post.

[Bill Z.]

Tim McNamara > writes:

> (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > Tim McNamara > writes:
> >
> >> (Bill Z.) writes:
> >>
> >> > You should note Krygowski's tactics.
> >>
> >> Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Read your own post.

I know damn well what I posted and you are lying.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> Frank Krygowski > writes:
> > Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
> > of citations listed there, too.
>
> This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
> anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
> who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
> tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
> disparages it.
>
> > Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> > you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> > www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
> > make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
> > without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
> > supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
> > groups."
>
> 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.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> > wrote in message >:
> >
> > > He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
> > >disparages it.
> >
> > No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.
>
> Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
> But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.

Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. Randy's site is even set up so that
you can't find the anti-helmet information but he puts it there in hard to
find locations so that he can say that it's really there. Avery doesn't like
helmet laws and is up front about it.

[Bill Z.]

"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.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"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.i td.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

[Tom Kunich]

"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&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%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.

[Tom Kunich]

"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.

[Bill Z.]

"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.i td.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

[Bill Z.]

"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

[Tom Kunich]

"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.

[Tim McNamara]

(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.

[Bill Z.]

"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

[Bill Z.]

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

[Tim McNamara]

(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.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:33:26 -0500, Tim McNamara
> wrote:

[snip]

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

Dear Tim,

I don't believe a word of it!

Carl Fogel

[Bill Z.]

Tim McNamara > writes:

> (Bill Z.) writes:

> > 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.

Uh huh. Guess I'll write you off too.

BTW, the anti-helmet crew did lie repeatedly. Why don't you look at
the vitriolic reaction I got for suggesting that helmets provide some
useful protection but are not a panacea? Does that sound unreasonable
to you?

One guy in particular posted repeated lies about me about me posting
continually to newsgroups (on a different topic) and when I called him
on it repeatedly, he could not produce a single example of anything I
had posted there, and simply muttered instead about archives but never
being able to produce a URL. Their standard procedure is to
personally attack anyone who they disagree with: usenet posters,
researchers, anyone.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:33:28 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
wrote in message
et>:

>Randy's site is even set up so that
>you can't find the anti-helmet information but he puts it there in hard to
>find locations so that he can say that it's really there

In a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware of the leopard",
located in a disused lavatory in a basement where the lights have
gone. As have the stairs.

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

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.)

Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?

You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
they just shake their heads.

[Chris B.]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
wrote:

>"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.)
>
>Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
>seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
>you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
>managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
>pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?
>
>You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
>Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
>they just shake their heads.

Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.)
>
> Well, actually I sort of consider that to be a real compliment since I've
> seen what people have called you on the Sun groups and the Unix groups when
> you tried to pass off your phoney information on people more informed. If I
> managed to be more abusive than they were I have to think that I must be
> pretty imaginative. Should we quote some of THOSE?

Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
produce a single URL.

BTW, if I thought anyone would take your lies seriously (after all,
anyone can easily check) I'd have more than enough grounds to sue your
ass for libel - you've posted this lie (with minor variations)
repeatedly and repeatedly refused to back it up with a URL (and the
Unix messages are all archived.) It is not an honest mistake on your
part.

> You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
> Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
> they just shake their heads.

Another of Kunich's lies - I've never *once* been in a bike shop in
Cupertino. It's 10 miles from where I live, we have good bike
shops here, and I use a bike for transportation, not racing, so there
is no reason for me to go to a shop in Cupertino to "hang out."

Well guys, what can you expect from a guy like Tom Kunich who,
according to his own accout, once "back handed" his girlfriend and
ended up in jail. See

<http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22back+handed%22+author:kunich&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod.i td.earthlink.net&rnum=1>,

which quotes Kunich as saying, "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."
You'll find that in the last paragraph of the post, and Kunich wrote
it. The quote is word-for-word taken off of a google archive. Just
search newsgroups for "back handed" in messages written by Kunich.

He was abusive then, and he's abusive now. Character assasination and
bald-faced lies are part of the standard operating procedure used by
these fanatics. You'll see more if the thread continues.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Chris B. > writes:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...

> >You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be in
> >Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left. Now
> >they just shake their heads.
>
> Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?

Don't ask. You'll trip him up and he'll start abusing you rather than
admitting that he just posts one lie after another.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Kunich]

"Chris B." > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:35:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
> wrote:
>
> >You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be
in
> >Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left.
Now
> >they just shake their heads.
>
> Their helmeted or non-helmeted heads?

Hell, everyone wears helmets don't they? It's sort of like a part of the
uniform. That doesn't mean they do anything.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
> can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
> any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
> of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
> branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
> produce a single URL.

Well, we've seen how well you've been loved though haven't we?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bi08uk01qb0%40drn.newsguy.com&rnum=3
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20030916204456.18098.00000846%40mb-m24.aol.com&rnum=4
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7kiv709fshd7k8ejsctr7lcg0lvrdirquq%404ax.com&rnum=8
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bj7tkm%24g9c3d%241%40ID-82914.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=20
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nemuaZ&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20040622023059.19227.00000513%40mb-m06.aol.com&rnum=26

Bill, I think that we can classify you as a well-known zit on the ass of
society. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find anyone who responded to any
of your postings to whom you were not antagonistic. Tim McNamara who is
hardly a great friend of mine mentioned in the middle of one of your usual
rants that you were doing what you accused me of doing - your repsonse? "I
know damn well what I posted and you are lying."

Here's some advice, if you're around people in the real world I suggest you
moderate your attitude or learn to hold your nose with both hands while
crying.

BTW Bill, weren't you the one who was working for Sun? Perhaps I have the
wrong Bill.

> > You forget, Bill, I met you in person at that bike shop that used to be
in
> > Cupertino many years ago. Back when people just laughed when you left.
Now
> > they just shake their heads.
>
> Another of Kunich's lies - I've never *once* been in a bike shop in
> Cupertino. It's 10 miles from where I live, we have good bike
> shops here, and I use a bike for transportation, not racing, so there
> is no reason for me to go to a shop in Cupertino to "hang out."

Wow, well, Bill, it was perhaps 10 years ago and you weren't there to buy
anything. You were just standing outside since apparently you weren't
allowed in the shop.

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Go ahead, you bald-faced lying piece of human trash, and see if you
> > can produce a URL to back up your lies. You couldn't possibly find
> > any for a very simple reason - I've posted zero or nearly zero on any
> > of those groups. So yes, I'll call you on it. Produce the URLs or be
> > branded a liar - we've been through this before and you've yet to
> > produce a single URL.
>
> Well, we've seen how well you've been loved though haven't we?

You talked about *unix* newsgroups, you liar. Now, where the
**** are these messages you claim exist?

What you came up with were (a) Insults from a moron who calls himself
"mad dog" (and acts like it, posting on a rec group which has a large
share of flames), (b) some idiot on a bicycle group, and (c) several
from Ric Silver, one of the worst idiots to plague ba.transportation
and some other groups in years. Ric Silver is a self-styled political
operator who goes out of the way to alienate people, and who lies
repeatedly. You picked idiots who have long standing grudges. Big
deal. Just check ba.transportation and look at Silver's posts, if
you want to see what he is like.

Kunich, I'm going to publically call you what you are - a bald-faced
lying piece of ****. You made a claim about statements on *unix*
groups. Produce them or be branded a bald-faced liar.

It is typical of you - you lie through your teeth and then try to
cover up by changing the topic.

Oh, and If I cited every message where some random person flamed you,
the list would be longer than anyone can imagine.

> Wow, well, Bill, it was perhaps 10 years ago and you weren't there to buy
> anything. You were just standing outside since apparently you weren't
> allowed in the shop.

I've never even stood outside of a Cupertino bike shop. I couldn't even
tell you where to find one in Cupertino. So, I say you are lying yet
again (and trying to cover up, of course.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
>
> It is typical of you - you lie through your teeth and then try to
> cover up by changing the topic.

Bill, I asked you if you worked for Sun. Is that too hard for you?

BTW, is the reason that I couldn't locate all of those people doing a number
on you on the Sun/Unix groups because you were using a different name? Of
course I could be remembering a different Bill - some OTHER ******.

[Bill Davidson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Bill, I asked you if you worked for Sun. Is that too hard for you?
>
> BTW, is the reason that I couldn't locate all of those people doing a number
> on you on the Sun/Unix groups because you were using a different name? Of
> course I could be remembering a different Bill - some OTHER ******.

Could you be more specific? I used to work at Sun. I don't
think I'm the guy you're thinking of though. I rarely ever
posted to Sun/UNIX groups and I'm pretty sure I haven't at all
in over a decade (before I worked at Sun). I also have never
been to a bike shop north of Huntington Beach California (south
of Los Angeles for those who don't know where that is). Sun's a
big company. They used to be even bigger (over 50k employees at
one point IIRC). There were a lot of Bill's there. Come to
think of it, I don't think I ever posted in the bicycles groups
while I was at Sun (though I did at Celerity and FPS back in the
80's).

--Bill Davidson

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It is typical of you - you lie through your teeth and then try to
> > cover up by changing the topic.
>
> Bill, I asked you if you worked for Sun. Is that too hard for you?

I don't give out my place of employment in response to requests from
some non-entity like you, particularly when the discussion is on a
"rec" group.

> BTW, is the reason that I couldn't locate all of those people doing a number
> on you on the Sun/Unix groups because you were using a different name? Of
> course I could be remembering a different Bill - some OTHER ******.

Couldn't locate "all"??? You ****ing liar!. You couldn't locate *one*.
You couldn't locate *any* such messages because you lied through your
****ing teeth. There were no such messages. At every place I've
worked, my lsst name has been part of my email address. There aren't
many people with my last name out there, so it is not like it would
have been hard for you to find.

While conceivably I might have posted a couple of messages to some
such groups over the last 20 years, I don't remember posting any
at all. I don't read these groups either - I've never subscribed
to one.

To be blunt, Kunich, you've been caught lying once again. You've
repeated this lie multiple times, and never produced a URL when
challenged to do that. And that says a lot about your credibility,
which in my opinion is about as close to zero as it could go. Given
your persistent behavior, the obvious conclusion is that you are
acting out of malice.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Davidson" > wrote in message
news:WpLDc.1932$151.948@fed1read02...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Bill, I asked you if you worked for Sun. Is that too hard for you?
> >
> > BTW, is the reason that I couldn't locate all of those people doing a
number
> > on you on the Sun/Unix groups because you were using a different name?
Of
> > course I could be remembering a different Bill - some OTHER ******.
>
> Could you be more specific? I used to work at Sun. I don't
> think I'm the guy you're thinking of though. I rarely ever
> posted to Sun/UNIX groups and I'm pretty sure I haven't at all
> in over a decade (before I worked at Sun). I also have never
> been to a bike shop north of Huntington Beach California (south
> of Los Angeles for those who don't know where that is). Sun's a
> big company. They used to be even bigger (over 50k employees at
> one point IIRC). There were a lot of Bill's there. Come to
> think of it, I don't think I ever posted in the bicycles groups
> while I was at Sun (though I did at Celerity and FPS back in the
> 80's).

I'm pretty sure that it was Zaumen. If it was him he was a technician at Sun
and had given out some really stupid advice on the Sun group and several
knowledgeable guys gave him hell for it and he ended up called in everyone a
liar just as he does here. Someone in the Unix group knew about his posting
style and noted that he was giving me and Krygowski a ration so they emailed
us both with the URL's.

But there were a couple of ******s on the helmet disucussions at that time
and it might not have been Zaumen. Though if you look through his postings
on all groups you can see that virtually any posting mentioning him by
someone other than himself is calling him an idiot. And if you look at his
own postings he's busy demolishing his own reputation. As I said, I met him
once before and thought that it was funny that he was hanging out around in
front of a bike shop that he wasn't allowed into. I have to admit it does
sound Zaumenesque though.

The only funnier thing I've seen recently was a guy who posts JUST like
Zaumen and who posted his picture on the Internet. Some other really cool
person just like him took the picture and posted it with a funny caption
under it and this original poster has been telling everyone that his picture
was "stolen".

[Bill Z.]

(JFJones) writes:

> (Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
>
> > .....
> > There aren't many people with my last name out there, so it is not like it
> > would have been hard for you to find.
>
> There used to be many but they all changed their names because they
> didn't want to be confused with the idiot on rec.bicycles ..

F___ you too.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" > writes:


> I'm pretty sure that it was Zaumen. If it was him he was a technician at Sun
> and had given out some really stupid advice on the Sun group and several
> knowledgeable guys gave him hell for it and he ended up called in everyone a
> liar just as he does here. Someone in the Unix group knew about his posting
> style and noted that he was giving me and Krygowski a ration so they emailed
> us both with the URL's.

This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
race a bad name.

He cannot produce a URL to even a single message on a Unix group that
shows any indication of being posted by me. If there was any such
message there, it would be trivial to find, and equally easy to find
any followups.

Kunich is also no doubt lying about the supposed email he got - he's
lied through his teeth about everything else and there is no reason
for anyone to send him such a post as there the alledged messages
he refers to simply do not exist.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Richard Adams]

Bill Z. wrote:

> This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
> URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
> a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
> race a bad name.

I always thought he had a mustache and eyebrows. Besides that, tell us,
how you really feel about him.

[Bill Z.]

Richard Adams > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
> > URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
> > a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
> > race a bad name.
>
> I always thought he had a mustache and eyebrows. Besides that, tell
> us, how you really feel about him.

I just did. I've nothing but contempt for him given his actions.
I really don't care what he actually looks like.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Richard Adams]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Richard Adams > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
>>>URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
>>>a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
>>>race a bad name.
>>
>>I always thought he had a mustache and eyebrows. Besides that, tell
>>us, how you really feel about him.
>
>
> I just did. I've nothing but contempt for him given his actions.
> I really don't care what he actually looks like.
>

Not only is irony wasted these days, so is sarcasm.

[Bill Z.]

(Bill Z.) writes:

> "Tom Kunich" > writes:
>
>
> > I'm pretty sure that it was Zaumen. If it was him he was a
> > technician at Sun and had given out some really stupid advice on
> > the Sun group and several knowledgeable guys gave him hell for it
> > and he ended up called in everyone a

> Kunich is also no doubt lying about the supposed email he got - he's
> lied through his teeth about everything else and there is no reason
> for anyone to send him such a post as there the alledged messages
> he refers to simply do not exist.

While I'm sure Kunich is lying about the email given his decade long
grudge, I should point out a certain Geoff Miller sort of fits his
description.

See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=geoff+miller+bicycles&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=35ak86%24nm6%40male.EBay.Sun.COM&rnum=2>
or
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=geoff+miller+bicycles&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2q3vrl%241el%40jethro.Corp.Sun.COM&rnum=3>.
or
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=geoff+miller+bicycles&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Wqw%25b.30929%24W52.11994%40newssvr25.news.pr odigy.com&rnum=10>.
It isn't clear from some of these who said what, and I've better uses of
my time than to try to go through it all.

Miller worked/works(?) for Sun, I believe as a sys-admin or something
similar, but in any case about 10 years ago a lot of people were mad
at him for posting articles bashing bicyclists and who knows what
else. You'll find a 'sun' address at the bottom of his posts, at least
some of them..

I got email about him at one point (and this assumes I got the name
right after a 10 year gap), and I'd imagine a lot of others did
too. Some people seemed to want to get him fired as a way to shut him
up. You can go through his posts if you are so inclined and make your
own decision, but I have better things to do.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Richard Adams > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Richard Adams > writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
> >>>URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
> >>>a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
> >>>race a bad name.
> >>
> >>I always thought he had a mustache and eyebrows. Besides that, tell
> >>us, how you really feel about him.
> > I just did. I've nothing but contempt for him given his actions.
> > I really don't care what he actually looks like.
> >
>
> Not only is irony wasted these days, so is sarcasm.

None of which will change the fact that for the past decade Kunich
has posted lie after lie after lie. I simply ignored your snide
remark and gave you a straight answer.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
>
> This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
> URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
> a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
> race a bad name.

And Bill Zaumen is a little weasely fool who lives in Palo Alto. Better
watch your mouth you might need some help on the road sometime and people
will just ride around you.

> Kunich is also no doubt lying about the supposed email he got - he's
> lied through his teeth about everything else and there is no reason
> for anyone to send him such a post as there the alledged messages
> he refers to simply do not exist.

Everyone is lying about you Bill. That's why all you have to do is a search
on your name to see you demonstrating why people don't like you.

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This is another of Kunich's bald-faced lies. He has yet to produce a
> > URL to back up his lies because there are no such URLs. Tom Kunich is
> > a bald-faced liar - a piece of trash so low that he gives the human
> > race a bad name.
>
> And Bill Zaumen is a little weasely fool who lives in Palo Alto. Better
> watch your mouth you might need some help on the road sometime and people
> will just ride around you.

Unlike you, I never ended up in jail for "back-handing" a girlfriend,
as you once that you did stated on usenet. That says a lot about you,
Tom, and the claim was in your own words.

> > Kunich is also no doubt lying about the supposed email he got - he's
> > lied through his teeth about everything else and there is no reason
> > for anyone to send him such a post as there the alledged messages
> > he refers to simply do not exist.
>
> Everyone is lying about you Bill. That's why all you have to do is a search
> on your name to see you demonstrating why people don't like you.
>
The fact, Kunich, is that you lied through your teeth. Usenet has its
share of liars. You are up there as far as that goes. The fact is
that you've posted lies repeatedly, have been caught not being able
to prove your statements (even though the proof should be a short
google search away), and then continued with your lies to cover up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[James Annan]

FFS can't either of you two losers even manage a flame war about HELMETS
rather than blethering about some old **** no-one gives a toss about?

All this "he said she said" bull**** is so OLD. Can't we get back to the
good old:

"You don't wear a helmet cos you've nothing to protect"

"Obviously your helmet didn't work as well as you hoped"

ner ner nee ner ner

stuff instead?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

[Bill Z.]

(oyvey1948) writes:


> Bill,
>
> Tom may be a pathological liar/redheaded stepchild, but he's *our*
> pathological liar/redheaded stepchild, so **** off and go back to your
> own newsgroup.

I'm reading this on rec.bicycles.soc. If you don't want people on
my newsgroup to respond to your posts, don't cross post. I didn't
start the cross posting, and don't know who did. Go back to the
top of the thread and find the real culprit - it is not like the
subject (helmets) is obviously off topic for any of these groups.

>
> Tom,
>
> Shut the **** up and go to your room.