Bicycle helmet law can save lives

On 13 May 2004 16:14:14 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

I know what a straw man is - it's where you attribute to me the view
that helmets cause rotational brain injuries ;-)

If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct
me toward Bill Curnow's paper?

Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it. Bill's paper is the
main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the
rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all.

Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post,
the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries?

Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read
Curnow.

I am making an natural conclusion from your own actions, not just
making up something out of thin air.

So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written
more. But I didn't. The address for service of lawsuits is on my
website.

To me it implied the question: have
you read the report?
100% Bull****.

Is your telepathy always that inaccurate?

Never mind, life's too short.

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?" wrote in message . ..
On 13 May 2004 16:14:14 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

I know what a straw man is - it's where you attribute to me the view
that helmets cause rotational brain injuries ;-)

If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct
me toward Bill Curnow's paper?

Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it.

And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I
actually comment on in my original post?

Bill's paper is the
main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the
rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all.

And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument.
Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a
smart-ass for effect?

Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post,
the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries?

Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read
Curnow.

And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what
good would reading Curnow have done, again? Reading Curnow had no
effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the
calims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my
original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for
comprehension.)

I am making an natural conclusion from your own actions, not just
making up something out of thin air.

So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written
more.

Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself
look like an idiot.

Pay careful attention next time - you could save yourself a lot of
grief if you keep your smart-assed quips to yourself.


To me it implied the question: have
you read the report?
100% Bull****.

Is your telepathy always that inaccurate?

It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just
being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it.
Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report
contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries? If the
answer is "none", then the report has no useful application to my
original comment. Reading it will thus NOT enlighten.

Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments
to yourself.
--
Bob Jones

Replying to Guy Jonesy wrote in part:

Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself
look like an idiot.

Pay careful attention next time - you could save yourself a lot of
grief if you keep your smart-assed quips to yourself.

Mr. Jonesy,

We all enjoy a good skewering but now I can barely see you up there on your
high horse. Relax dude!

You claimed that there was no good evidence in support of the notion that
bicycle helmets exacerbate rotational injuries. That may or may not be the
case. If Curnow's paper is useless in this regard, does anybody know of any
studies that have been done concerning helmets and rotational injuries? There
must be some.

Robert

On 17 May 2004 09:28:45 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct
me toward Bill Curnow's paper?
Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it.
And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I
actually comment on in my original post?

Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to.

Bill's paper is the
main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the
rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all.

And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument.
Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a
smart-ass for effect?

No, the point was that the report is represented as saying that, but
doesn't. What it says is that the prospective studies which seek to
suggest that the reductions in serious and fatal injuries due to
helmets will follow a similar pattern to minor injuries, is based on a
lack of understanding of the mechanisms of brain injury. Which I
found interesting.

Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post,
the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries?
Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read
Curnow.
And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what
good would reading Curnow have done, again?

It would dispel the idea that Curnow claims that helmets play a
significant role in increasing rotational injuries, and it would slo
show that there is significant evidence that rotational forces play a
significant role in serious and fatal brain injury (an idea now
considered mainstream by those studying car crash injuries). Helmets
can do nothing to mitigate these forces.

Reading Curnow had no
effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the
calims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my
original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for
comprehension.)

Please try to stop being needlessly offensive.

So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written
more.
Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself
look like an idiot.

No, I asked if you had read the report, FFS, because I knew I had a
copy of the sodding thing!

It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just
being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it.
Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report
contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries?

It doesn't claim to do so. What others may have claimed on its behalf
I can't say.

Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments
to yourself.

Next time chill out, you'll give yourself an ulcer.

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?" wrote in message . ..
On 17 May 2004 09:28:45 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

If you do not agree with that view, then why on earth did you direct
me toward Bill Curnow's paper?
Because it appeared as if you hadn't read it.
And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I
actually comment on in my original post?

Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to.

Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red
herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc.

Bill's paper is the
main source I know of which is alluded to by those arguing about the
rotational issue, but it is not actually about that at all.

And yet, my original post was clear on why I dismiss the argument.
Are you read-comprehension-impaired? Or are you just being a
smart-ass for effect?

No, the point was that the report is represented as saying that, but
doesn't.

So, it's a paper neutral to my original argument, not really even
addressing it at all, but somehow, *you* find it relevant. How odd.

Why did you quote and respond to ONE SENTENCE out of my original post,
the only sentence that had anything to do with rotational injuries?
Because it was the ONE SENTENCE which implied that you hadn't read
Curnow.

And after reading Curnow, and finding that it had no evidence, what
good would reading Curnow have done, again?

It would dispel the idea that Curnow claims that helmets play a
significant role in increasing rotational injuries

[snip]

Wow. What was it that I said originally, again? How did your retort
increase the level of understanding at all? None? Sheesh, you are an
incredible asshole to go on and on and on like the damn paper means
any ****ing thing.

Reading Curnow had no
effect on my assertion that there is no supporting evidence in the
claims that helmets cause increased rotational injuries. (Re-read my
original post for clarification, if you can indeed read for
comprehension.)

Please try to stop being needlessly offensive.

Why in the hell should I do that? You obviously can't read, cannot
understand it when it's written such that a two-year-old could get it,
and continue to argue that the Curnow paper actually means any damn
thing to anyone. You requesting any reduction in "being...offensive"
is highly ironic, however.

So it was careless use of language on my part - I should have written
more.
Or less. In your attempt to appear knowledgable, you made yourself
look like an idiot.

No, I asked if you had read the report, FFS, because I knew I had a
copy of the sodding thing!

Again, why in **** would I want to read the damn thing? IT HAS NO
DATA, AND IT HAS ONLY TANGENTIAL RELATION TO MY ORIGINAL POST! Is
that loud enough for you, moron? It's not interesting. It has no
useful, additional information. It does not enlighten. It does not
add to the discussion. Are you getting the picture yet, or do I need
to draw in crayon and speak in baby-talk?

It's a nice attempt to try and pretend that somehow you were just
being civic-minded, and attempting to "inform" me. I'm not buying it.
Again, I will ask you this question: What EVIDENCE does the report
contain that helmets increase rotational brain injuries?

It doesn't claim to do so.

So, it contributes nothing, and is neutral on my original comment of
lack of evidence for helmets creating rotational injuries. Gotcha.

What others may have claimed on its behalf
I can't say.

Since I claimed nothing on its behalf, this is a non sequitur.

Next time, read for comprehension, and keep your smart-assed comments
to yourself.

Next time chill out, you'll give yourself an ulcer.

I'll chill out when smart-asses shut the hell up unless they have
something useful to offer. I'm sure you'll remind me when (or if)
that ever happens.

Just to be completely clear, Curnow's paper was neither useful nor
interesting. Are you clear, or do I need to use shorter words?
--
Jonesy

On 18 May 2004 09:31:09 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I
actually comment on in my original post?

Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to.

Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red
herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc.

I can't be arsed to argue about it any more.

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?" wrote in message . ..
On 18 May 2004 09:31:09 -0700, (Jonesy) wrote
in message :

And, having read it, I have discovered that it didn't contain ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE regarding rotational injuries. Hmmm, what did I
actually comment on in my original post?

Yes, and having read it you now know that it didn't pretend to.

Which, of course, means that it *contributed nothing.* It's a red
herring. No value. Makes my original statement true. Etc.

I can't be arsed to argue about it any more.

Which, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why you bothered *in the first place*!!!
--
Jonesy