Re: OT Banning of JMS - rejected posts [Archive]

JMS

July 2nd 10, 09:37 PM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with rapes
and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>

>Guy

Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps you
were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and update
your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)

Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising

I thought I had pointed out the precedent :

"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams"

--

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

Percy Picacity

July 2nd 10, 10:05 PM

JMS > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
><rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with
> rapes and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>
>
>>Guy
>
>
> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps
> you were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and
> update your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>
> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
> factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising

I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.

>
> I thought I had pointed out the precedent :
>
> "There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose
> the
> cyclist to the risk of greater injury.
>
> The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances
> and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence
> should wear one.
>
> Mr Justice Griffith Williams"
>
> --
>
> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
> encourage my children to wear helmets. I encourage my children to
> wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

--
Percy Picacity

JMS

July 2nd 10, 11:03 PM

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
> wrote:

>JMS > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
>> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with
>> rapes and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>>
>>
>>>Guy
>>
>>
>> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
>> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps
>> you were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and
>> update your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>>
>> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
>> factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising
>
>I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
>would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
>that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
>polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
>out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.

Oh dear, oh dear - I now do see that reading is in fact not a strong
point of yours - this may have resulted in some of your more nasty
accusations.

I referred to his head injury - I did not say it was "significant" -
but thanks for trying to put words in to my mouth.

Indeed if he has a significant head injury - he may wish to lie about
it in case it goes to court. But then of course - if he had worn a
helmet, some would say his injuries may have been worse.

You may also note the use of a question mark - I was actually asking a
question about his head injuries - knowing that he had suffered some.
I guess that not wearing a helmet must have contributed to them

I suspect that the motorist's insurance company may take more notice
of Judge William's view on the matter than they will of your's or
Chapman's.

Anyway - thanks for reading and commenting on my post - but please try
and get your facts right otherwise things may be open to
misinterpretation.

(PS Have you found those nasty posts I made yet - or perhaps you are
not looking?)
--

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

July 2nd 10, 11:17 PM

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
> wrote:

>I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
>would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
>that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
>polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
>out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.

Well, significant, but nowhere near the upper end of significant -
I've been caused much more pain by the other injuries.

>> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
>> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
>> encourage my children to wear helmets. I encourage my children to
>> wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

^ See that, Percy? Let's just tweak that slightly:

>> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
>> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
>> encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman, 2008)
>> I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman, 2004)

Now, does that juxtaposition look *honest* to you, in the context of
the (easily verifiable) dates? This is the person who spends much of
her online life accusing other people of being dishonest; sauce for
the goose I'd have said. I'm guessing she used a broken sigsep to
ensure it got quoted, but that's cynicism born of long experience, not
any kind of technical judgment.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

JMS

July 3rd 10, 12:01 AM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:17:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip a large Chapman wriggle>
>
>Guy

You've missed off the bit about altering the web page.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

Derek C

July 3rd 10, 01:00 AM

On Jul 2, 9:37*pm, JMS > wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> > wrote:
>
> <rant with things totally out of proportion *and perspective- the
> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with rapes
> and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>
> >Guy
>
> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; *perhaps you
> were concussed and forgot about it :-) *(Now don't go back and update
> your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>
> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
> factor in your head injuries? *If so, that is not surprising
>
> I thought I had pointed out the precedent :
>
> *"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
> cyclist to the risk of greater injury.
>
> The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
> it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
> wear one.
>
> Mr Justice Griffith Williams"
>
> -- * * * * *
>
Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
probably explains a lot.

Tony Raven[_3_]

July 3rd 10, 07:25 AM

Derek C wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
> hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
> believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
> brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
> can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
> probably explains a lot.

The most common causes of concussion are car accidents and falls. Are
you suggesting that car drivers and people in general should wear
helmets too?

Unfortunately though your medical knowledge appears to be about as poor
as your knowledge of physics.

But could you explain, if concussion requires an impact greater than
100g (it doesn't by the way but never mind) and a cycle helmet is
designed to limit a limited range of impacts to no more than 200g, how
can a bicycle helmet protect you from concussion and the sequella you state?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Derek C

July 3rd 10, 08:41 AM

On Jul 3, 7:25*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
> > hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
> > believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
> > brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
> > can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
> > probably explains a lot.
>
> The most common causes of concussion are car accidents and falls. *Are
> you suggesting that car drivers and people in general should wear
> helmets too?
>
> Unfortunately though your medical knowledge appears to be about as poor
> as your knowledge of physics.
>
> But could you explain, if concussion requires an impact greater than
> 100g (it doesn't by the way but never mind) and a cycle helmet is
> designed to limit a limited range of impacts to no more than 200g, how
> can a bicycle helmet protect you from concussion and the sequella you state?
>
> --
> Tony
>
The damage to your brain in an accident is related both to the g force
and the time over which it is applied. I understand that a sustained g
force of 18g will kill you but you can survive 300g for one
millisecond without significant injury. This is explained quite well
in the following article:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

Guy chapman had a single vehicle accident on a bicycle in which he
banged his head hard enough to cause concussion. It is more than
probable that wearing a cycle helmet would have prevented this
concussion.

Derek C

July 3rd 10, 08:42 AM

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

July 3rd 10, 08:51 AM

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
>hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
>believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
>brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
>can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
>probably explains a lot.

I have never been concussed as a result of skidding on ice. The last
time I was admitted for overnight observation was around thirty years
ago, since when I have gained an engineering degree.

What is your source for the figure of 100g? And do you understand why
your comment embodies a logical fallacy?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

July 3rd 10, 09:14 AM

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 00:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>The damage to your brain in an accident is related both to the g force
>and the time over which it is applied.

No it isn't. The worst traumatic brain injuries are caused by
rotational forces, sometimes quite modest. It's called diffuse axonal
injury. The brain can sustain much larger linear forces than
rotational. So the largest factor is not the magnitude or duration of
the force but the nature of it.

>Guy chapman had a single vehicle accident on a bicycle in which he
>banged his head hard enough to cause concussion. It is more than
>probable that wearing a cycle helmet would have prevented this
>concussion.

That collision was over thirty years ago and actually I was wearing a
helmet at the time.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Tony Raven[_3_]

July 3rd 10, 09:38 AM

Derek C wrote:
>
> The damage to your brain in an accident is related both to the g force
> and the time over which it is applied. I understand that a sustained g
> force of 18g will kill you but you can survive 300g for one
> millisecond without significant injury. This is explained quite well
> in the following article:
>
> http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
>

If that sort of article is where you source your knowledge no wonder you
are in such bad shape. Nowhere does it mention a 100g threshold for
concussion that you claimed in your previous post. It used to be
thought there was a threshold of around 70-75g but the advent of
instrumented helmets in high impact sports has shown that there is no
threshold with bad concussion occurring well below that level and no
concussion well above that level. But hey, get your medical knowledge
from a motorbike magazine if you wish.

> Guy chapman had a single vehicle accident on a bicycle in which he
> banged his head hard enough to cause concussion. It is more than
> probable that wearing a cycle helmet would have prevented this
> concussion.

Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
the facts seems to be your MO.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

July 3rd 10, 10:35 AM

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:38:09 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
>yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
>the facts seems to be your MO.

Actually I have, but not in the circumstances Derek describes.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Tony Raven[_3_]

July 3rd 10, 11:09 AM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:38:09 +0100, Tony Raven >
> wrote:
>
>> Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
>> yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
>> the facts seems to be your MO.
>
> Actually I have, but not in the circumstances Derek describes.
>

I stand corrected. I wonder where Derek got it from because he was
absolutely certain about it. Or is he so away with the fairies that he
hears his "one truths" from the voices?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

JMS

July 3rd 10, 11:13 AM

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:51:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:
>
>>Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
>>hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
>>believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
>>brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
>>can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
>>probably explains a lot.
>
>I have never been concussed as a result of skidding on ice. The last
>time I was admitted for overnight observation was around thirty years
>ago, since when I have gained an engineering degree.
>
>What is your source for the figure of 100g? And do you understand why
>your comment embodies a logical fallacy?
>
>Guy

I think he was explaining why you are a nutter.

I think your reply proves the point.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

July 3rd 10, 12:27 PM

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +0100, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:38:09 +0100, Tony Raven >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
>>> yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
>>> the facts seems to be your MO.
>>
>> Actually I have, but not in the circumstances Derek describes.
>>
>
>I stand corrected. I wonder where Derek got it from because he was
>absolutely certain about it. Or is he so away with the fairies that he
>hears his "one truths" from the voices?

No idea, I suspect he only half-reads things and then goes off on one.
That may explain quite a lot here, actually.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Tony Raven[_3_]

July 3rd 10, 12:58 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> No idea, I suspect he only half-reads things and then goes off on one.
> That may explain quite a lot here, actually.
>

That's very generous - it appears to me he doesn't read anything or if
he does he has instant selective amnesia about it. I don't think he's
ever read any of the literature on helmets despite non-specifically
quoting it as supporting his position.

For example he has never been able to say what he thinks about Hewson's
data on under-16 cyclists which comes pretty close to his ideal of
having two groups which differ only in their helmet wearing. He has
clearly never seen TRT as he is unable to comment on the selection of
the cohorts. And despite citing many well designed hospital studies as
supporting his position, he is unable to give a single reference to even
one.

But he pretty much hits all the buttons for classification as a
pseudoscientist and has added an extra one of proof by repetition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untes table_claims

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Wm...

July 4th 10, 06:20 AM

Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:14:54 >
uk.rec.cycling "Just zis Guy, you know?" >

>That collision was over thirty years ago and actually I was wearing a
>helmet at the time.

I think some people are going to conveniently forget that, Guy.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm...

July 4th 10, 06:27 AM

Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:09:05 >
uk.rec.cycling Tony Raven >

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:38:09 +0100, Tony Raven >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
>>>yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
>>>the facts seems to be your MO.
>> Actually I have, but not in the circumstances Derek describes.
>>
>
>I stand corrected. I wonder where Derek got it from because he was
>absolutely certain about it. Or is he so away with the fairies that he
>hears his "one truths" from the voices?

I think he has voices talking to him often. I'm guessing it is
unpleasant; why he tells us about the voices in his head is beyond me;
if I had them I'd shut up about them.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

JMS

July 4th 10, 07:08 PM

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:35:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:38:09 +0100, Tony Raven >
>wrote:
>
>>Guy says he's never had concussion yet you are absolutely sure of
>>yourself. Still, doggedly defending an indefensible position against
>>the facts seems to be your MO.
>
>Actually I have, but not in the circumstances Derek describes.
>
>Guy

The truth was never one of Raven's strong points.

Now how about sharing with us - who is saying that you *must* wear a
helmet?

This wouldn't be another little porky would it?

I think that you have realised from what we have said that indeed a
helmet would make good sense.

However, you could not be seen to be wearing one - so you will have
to blame the wife putting you under pressure :-)

Is it true that the car driver's insurance company are holding you
partially responsible - contributory negligence or something?

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

JMS

July 4th 10, 07:09 PM

On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:27:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>No idea, I suspect he only half-reads things and then goes off on one.
>That may explain quite a lot here, actually.
>
>Guy

Now then Chapman - how's the head?

Swollen?

No change there then.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

JMS

July 4th 10, 07:11 PM

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:27:45 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:

<snip>

>I think he has voices talking to him often. I'm guessing it is
>unpleasant; why he tells us about the voices in his head is beyond me;
>if I had them I'd shut up about them.

You're another nasty little maggot - I wonder what the collective noun
would be : You, Raven, and the ****wit Chapman?

A Squelch of maggots - I would rather like that sound.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

Wm...

July 5th 10, 12:38 PM

Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:08:10 >
uk.rec.cycling JMS >

>Is it true that the car driver's insurance company are holding you
>partially responsible - contributory negligence or something?

JMS, is it impossible for you to be reasonable and just talk to people?

I'm trying to get you access rights to urcm but need you to do something
too.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

JMS

July 5th 10, 01:42 PM

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:38:17 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:

>Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:08:10 >
>uk.rec.cycling JMS >
>
>>Is it true that the car driver's insurance company are holding you
>>partially responsible - contributory negligence or something?
>
>JMS, is it impossible for you to be reasonable and just talk to people?
>
>I'm trying to get you access rights to urcm but need you to do something
>too.

Hello Maggot - it has nothing to do with you whether I post in URCM
or not.

Feel free to **** off.

(Why was it you just claimed that an email you sent to me months ago -
"bounced" - do you have a poor memory?)

--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams