|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
On Aug 14, 3:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm rambling, sorry. *The point is, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but those who are rude to me. (I admit it would be better to totally ignore the childish Jute with his childish insults, and I usually do try.) *When Scharf lies, I _will_ call him on it and correct him. *Beyond that, if Duane or others take every disagreement as an insult, there's little I can do. *I have my facts. *They should be able to present theirs without getting offended - assuming they have facts, not unfounded opinions. - Frank Krygowski LOL. Kreepy Krygowski is "rambling" (his description, not mine) at Dan, not at me, but nevertheless can't resist taking a profoundly silly sideswipe at me, entirely without provocation. What a hypocritical ******! Is there anyone here who hasn't yet grasped that the reason I'm anathema to the global warmies and the anti-helmet zealots, to both of which doomed fraternities Krygowski belongs with a religious conviction, is that I am competent with the statistics (Krygowski has to work with my numbers because he's too ignorant to work up his own), and always come to the table fully loaded with the scientific facts. It just looks like an unfair contest between a religious obsessive and a monster polemicist to these losers because that's a sort of excuse for them looking foolish every time they tangle with me; if you look carefully, you'll discover that I quash these idiots simply because I'm open-minded and always better prepared on the facts than they are. (Some of them have no facts, only faith and abuse.) This newsgroup used to be absolutely full of global warmies. Now the only global warmie eyebrows we see rising above the parapet belong to the incorrigible slow learners, like Krygowski. It figures that Krygo should be an anti-helmet zealot as well. I have posted recently on the delicious irony of the contradiction in holding those two positions concurrently. See, Global Warming "science" wants to substitute for real science a scare tactic called "the precautionary principle", i.e. we should beggar ourselves and our descendants for something that might happen though they can offer no proof that it will, or that the effort won't be more harmful than beneficial. (In the 1970s the same sort of morons, in many cases the same people, who now want us to starve trees of their food, CO2, wanted us to heat up the oceans to combat the coming Big Freeze. They claimed back then too to have have science on their side, and a big consensus...) But if the "precautionary principle" is good enough for global warming, which has less hard science than Scientology, why isn't the precautionary principle also good enough to mandate bicycle helmets in the presence of so much more high quality data? (Note that I'm not arguing for this despicable cop-out of the "precautionary principle", which can justify any evil -- say the Holotcaust -- because it specifically depends on the absence of proof and reason, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Krygowski, who are trying to set themselves up as our spokesmen.) Andre Jute Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
On Aug 14, 7:25*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 14, 3:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm rambling, sorry. *The point is, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but those who are rude to me. (I admit it would be better to totally ignore the childish Jute with his childish insults, and I usually do try.) *When Scharf lies, I _will_ call him on it and correct him. *Beyond that, if Duane or others take every disagreement as an insult, there's little I can do. *I have my facts. *They should be able to present theirs without getting offended - assuming they have facts, not unfounded opinions. - Frank Krygowski LOL. Kreepy Krygowski is "rambling" (his description, not mine) at Dan, not at me, but nevertheless can't resist taking a profoundly silly sideswipe at me, entirely without provocation. What a hypocritical ******! Is there anyone here who hasn't yet grasped that the reason I'm anathema to the global warmies and the anti-helmet zealots, to both of which doomed fraternities Krygowski belongs with a religious conviction, is that I am competent with the statistics (Krygowski has to work with my numbers because he's too ignorant to work up his own), and always come to the table fully loaded with the scientific facts. It just looks like an unfair contest between a religious obsessive and a monster polemicist to these losers because that's a sort of excuse for them looking foolish every time they tangle with me; if you look carefully, you'll discover that I quash these idiots simply because I'm open-minded and always better prepared on the facts than they are. (Some of them have no facts, only faith and abuse.) This newsgroup used to be absolutely full of global warmies. Now the only global warmie eyebrows we see rising above the parapet belong to the incorrigible slow learners, like Krygowski. It figures that Krygo should be an anti-helmet zealot as well. I have posted recently on the delicious irony of the contradiction in holding those two positions concurrently. See, Global Warming "science" wants to substitute for real science a scare tactic called "the precautionary principle", i.e. we should beggar ourselves and our descendants for something that might happen though they can offer no proof that it will, or that the effort won't be more harmful than beneficial. (In the 1970s the same sort of morons, in many cases the same people, who now want us to starve trees of their food, CO2, wanted us to heat up the oceans to combat the coming Big Freeze. They claimed back then too to have have science on their side, and a big consensus...) But if the "precautionary principle" is good enough for global warming, which has less hard science than Scientology, why isn't the precautionary principle also good enough to mandate bicycle helmets in the presence of so much more high quality data? (Note that I'm not arguing for this despicable cop-out of the "precautionary principle", which can justify any evil -- say the Holotcaust -- because it specifically depends on the absence of proof and reason, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Krygowski, who are trying to set themselves up as our spokesmen.) Andre Jute *Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela You've learned so much behavior from a sometime provacateur I recall as calling himself Dolan the Great. I haven't read Krygowski's chewing on bicycle helmets' efficaciousness as lame. Harry Travis |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
On Aug 15, 1:46*am, incredulous wrote:
I haven't read Krygowski's chewing on bicycle helmets' efficaciousness as lame. Harry Travis From the New York study cited below: Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear a helmet. This, in addition, makes it tough for anyone in good faith to advise people that helmets are unnecessary: Compare the very low level of helmet use in fatal crashes (3%) to that in non-fatal crashes leading to serious injury (13%). Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf Krygowski hasn't dared answer the implication that at least ~10% of the fatalities could have lived if they wore helmets. That's not just "limp", as you have it, Harry, that's Krygowski being cowardly and substituting personal abuse and lies for statistical analysis and reason and truth. Furthermore, it is despicable and slimy: Krygowski is trying to substitute his politics for science because he fears, and says openly, that any results which tend to indicate that helmets save lives is ammunition for the proponents of mandatory helmet laws. I, for one, won't lie for Krygowski's political self-aggrandizement. Andre Jute Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
STATISTICS SHOW....
RBT's reduced participation levels from new posters asking tech
questions from the assembled panel of morons, baboons, LBS owners, bike mechanics ( a presumption) computer users lacking imagination, creativity or motivation are directly proportional to Jute's involvement. Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking advice. Perjorative subject line material isnot in our best interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on colostomy. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
From the New York study cited below: Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear ahelmet. I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute "pedestrians" or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18 wheel trucks", and the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his profession of relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets to be protected. Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule him for the evident erroneous inference. When he has done engineering analysis within his domain of expertise, I had assumed Andre could be trusted in his exercise of logic. Now, I don't know that I would trust a valve amplifier of his design. If the NY study doesn't estimate exposure to risk better than Jute draws inferences, then the report is no more worth reading than the nasty threads Jute has recently started. Trying not to be prejudicial, I'd still suggest that mandatory correct helmet use by bicycle messengers would go far in reducing fatal and serious bicycle injuries in NYC. Harry Travis Pine Barrens of NJ USA Andre Jute *Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Time Wasting of Andre Jute
In article
, incredulous wrote: From the New York study cited below: Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear ahelmet. I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute "pedestrians" or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18 wheel trucks", and the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his profession of relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets to be protected. Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule him for the evident erroneous inference. When he has done engineering analysis within his domain of expertise, I had assumed Andre could be trusted in his exercise of logic. Now, I don't know that I would trust a valve amplifier of his design. If the NY study doesn't estimate exposure to risk better than Jute draws inferences, then the report is no more worth reading than the nasty threads Jute has recently started. Trying not to be prejudicial, I'd still suggest that mandatory correct helmet use by bicycle messengers would go far in reducing fatal and serious bicycle injuries in NYC. Please don't feed the Troll Jute by responding to his endlessly inane threads. He takes great pleasure in rendering newsgroups basically useless. -- That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
STATISTICS SHOW....
On 16 Aug, 14:43, kolldata wrote:
RBT's reduced participation levels from new posters asking tech questions from the assembled panel of morons, baboons, LBS owners, bike mechanics ( a presumption) computer users lacking imagination, creativity or motivation are directly proportional to Jute's involvement. Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking advice. Perjorative subject line material isnot in our best interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on colostomy. I will not be further encouraging the jute. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
incredulous wrote:
From the New York study cited below: Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear ahelmet. I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute "pedestrians" or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18 wheel trucks", and the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his profession of relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets to be protected. Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule him for the evident erroneous inference. The two statements are unambiguous, even if orthogonal and not supportive of "conjunction of facts". However, both statements relate directly to helmet use and bicycling fatalities. Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You would have to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet effectiveness in reducing bicycle deaths. The other statement only says 26% of all bicycling fatalities died of causes other than head injuries. Helmet use would not be irrelevant in this group. The distribution within the other group is unknown. In any case, neither statement has anything at all to say about pedestrians, passenger vehicle occupants, or drivers of 18 wheel trucks. So far, you're the one looking like a total idiot. If you're to climb out on a limb to make debating points, make sure first that it will support your weight. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
incredulous wrote:
When he has done engineering analysis within his domain of expertise, I had assumed Andre could be trusted in his exercise of logic. Now, I don't know that I would trust a valve amplifier of his design. If you need to judge the skills of a valve amplifier designer by whether you like his bike politics, sorry Harry, you're not quite ready for high tension tubes. Valve voltages will kill wishful thinkers a lot faster than bicycling will. You will be safer with the Tripath SA2020 chip, which sounds pretty near SE tubes; complete amps with this chip cost pocket change, and it uses only a safe 12V. If the NY study doesn't estimate exposure to risk better than Jute draws inferences, then the report is no more worth reading than the When you've read and understood the report, we can discuss my analysis of it. Until then you're wasting our time trying to score debating points. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Hypocrisy in Andrι Jute's professions of faith
On 8/14/2010 7:25 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
[...] Too long, did not read. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Frank Krygowski's files | [email protected] | Techniques | 3 | August 28th 09 06:03 PM |
For Frank Krygowski's helmet files | [email protected] | Techniques | 701 | July 6th 09 12:39 AM |
For Frank Krygowski's bicycle safety file | Marian | Techniques | 2 | June 25th 09 09:03 PM |
More hypocrisy | Bill C | Racing | 12 | July 31st 06 12:33 PM |