published helmet research - not troll

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, every piece of data you produced proved you wrong. At this
point there are three options open to you:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

Instead you choose ad-hominem, pretending that I am the one with
something to prove (when you are the one making claims of benefit) and
of course the good old Zaumen standby of evasion.

I expected nothing else.

This subthread now lives in the bitbucket, since it is absolutely
clear to all concerned that the evidence is against you but you would
rather try to bore us to death than either admit it or find new data
which does not contradict 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 Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data. You simply pretended that a limiting
case - a 1980s non-aerodynamic design was the best you could do, even
though we had several data points that did far better, and the non-
aerodynamic design was only slightly worse than riding with "long
hair" instead of going for a sci-fi cyborg look.


And you are *still* posting you childish baby talk. Ask your mommy,
Guy. She has obviously missed something while bringing you up and
you should go back to her for a refresher course.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion,

And I *did* back it up with data.

Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, but my money is
on 4. Evasion, 5. Repeating the same discredited assertion in the hope
that someone who hasn't read the data will believe it, or 6.
ad-hominem attack.

Thanks for all the data proving you wrong, that saved me a lot of
time. This subthread is now yours alone to enjoy in your inimitable
style (or rather unimitated, nobody else wanting to make quite such an
exhibition of themselves); no doubt you will claim that as a victory
because once you've driven off everybody who has any knowledge or
insight, in your usual way, you can claim that 100% of the remaining
participants agree with you. The fact that you /are/ 100% of the
remaining participants will no doubt not spoil your pleasure.

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?" writes:

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion,

And I *did* back it up with data.

Which said the exact opposite of what you assert, yes. Under which
circumstances you have exactly three possible options:

That is simply a lie on your part, and you are *still* being a child
with you infantile name calling (and pointing that out is *not*
an ad hominem attack - it is a simply a factual description of
your conduct.) The data clearly showed a non-aerodyamic helmet
that was slightly worse that riding with long hair, an ANSI certified
aerodynamic helmet that was better than riding with short hair, but
a bit worse than being bald headed, and a non-ANSI certified helmet
that reduced air drag over riding with a completely bald head. Quite
obviously, there are many design points in the middle - ANSI certified,
and that give you an air drag reduction for normal cyclists - ones
who don't pick their hair styles to save a few seconds on a bike
ride.


cut and paste job snipped

I won't know which you choose because I'm outta here, snip

You've said you are "outta here" (or words to that effect) before,
and it has *never* been true.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data.

When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

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

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data.

When you post data that proves the point you're arguing against it isn't
considered a win. But plainly you don't have advanced enough logic skills to
understand that.

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag. If
you have one limiting case, an older non-aerodynamic design with only
slightly worse drag than a bare head (for a cyclist with a full head
of hair) and other designs that do better than a cyclist with short
hair, then it is pretty obvious that there are lots of points in
between, and that you don't have to do very much better from the
symmetric helmet designs from the 1980s to see a net benefit.

Is that *really* so hard for you to understand or are you just lying
as usual? After all, your track record in the honesty department
should be an embarassment, even for you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
your posts containing your usual lies.

Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
help. I'd suggest you get it.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

I never claimed every conceivable helmet design reduces air drag.

Look, you little SOB, you've claimed that helmets represent the second
coming of Christ, that they will automaticaly make you 3 mph faster and
that
they will protect you from a diesel truck hitting you at 100 mph.

And you've been arguing this for the last 10 years.

Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
your posts containing your usual lies.

Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
help. I'd suggest you get it.

It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

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

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Well, that's yet another lie on your part, but what else is new? Try
to prove otherwise by producing a quote where I said even something
vaguely like that. You know, something with the message ID to a
statement I actually posted on the subject, not the URL to one of
your posts containing your usual lies.

Kunich, you are one of the worst liars on usenet. I'm not sure what
your personal problem is, but you really do need some professional
help. I'd suggest you get it.

It's a really good thing that you've spent your time on the internet hiding
from people who would kick you in your stupid ass so hard that people would
think that you're wearing a turtleneck sweater.

Is that what you told your former(?) girlfriend when you "back-handed"
her and landed in the slammer? I'm really not impressed with you,
Tommy, nor anyone else with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old
boy. My guess is you've never been in even a remotely dicy situation.
If you had, you wouldn't need to resort to childish macho posturing.
It is really pathetic.

Oh, and if you don't like being called a liar, then you should refrain
from lying. Telling an obvious lie, and you obviously couldn't back
up your lie about what I had said on this topic by posting a URL, and
then pouting when called on it just makes you look like a child.

Oh, and if you do drop by, don't be surprised if you end up in the
slammer for a second time, and your post would be used as evidence
against you. Not very smart of you, one would think.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB