|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1311
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#1312
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
We were talking about what people *post* here. Pretending otherwise is just yet another of your slimy debating tactics. As long as he restricts those tactics to Usenet, it's fine. What we don't want to happen is for that kind of stuff to be used in actual debates on helmet laws in front of the poliiticians that make decisions. The sound-bites and stupid anecdotes are used by politicians to mislead their target audience of naive voters, but it doesn't work the other way. Most politicians come from a legal backround, and are not impressed by the type of faulty logic favored by Frank. |
#1314
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:29:38 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message . net: We were talking about what people *post* here. Pretending otherwise is just yet another of your slimy debating tactics. As long as he restricts those tactics to Usenet, it's fine. What we don't want to happen is for that kind of stuff to be used in actual debates on helmet laws in front of the poliiticians that make decisions. Quite. Because once the polits realise that the helmet zealots are lying to them, they won't pass the laws, and we all know that for all your protestations to the contrary you are in favour of helmet laws - there is no other reasonable explanation for your repeated urging that people follow your unproven "they work but don't make us wear them" route rather than the route of showing the flaws in the studies, as practised with success in the UK and Republic of Ireland recently. Frank has testified before a legislature on helmets, you have not. I know others who have testified in front of legislatures, following Frank's model, and succeeded in getting the laws abandoned. I would be really interested to know, though, why it should be considered a good tactic to allow bogus claims to go unchallenged. It is not as if the epidemiology community is unaware of the problems of self-selection bias and confounding - it's causing something of a crisis in epidemiology at the moment. Check out the debate on HRT and CHD, on vitamin supplements and on MMR triple vaccine. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#1315
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:44:35 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : What I claimed follows from the fact that accidents are Poisson distributed, which they have to be. Look up the necessary and sufficient conditions for that to see why. So you say, but that is arm-waving, not evidence. The curve may or may not be of a given shape, but without specifying the various factors the shape of the curve neither proves nor disproves your point, as you must surely be aware. So, some facts, please. And in respect of the original assertion, that high-mileage cyclists are more likely to wear helmets, you have yet to post any evidence whatsoever. Citations, please. rest of post ignored ... Guy is just ranting and it is a waste of time. Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Very mature. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#1316
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:41:52 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote in message : Funny that your side's only argument seems to be to rant about this single paper, as you pretty much ignore anything else. Nice try, Bill, but seriously at odds with the facts. Try again - your side's argument is *not* a series of URLs you post now, but what the argument that is being posted by your side of the discussion *on this newsgroup.* Furthermore, what you *rant* about are the studies you are *complaining* about. My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention, not with those urging scepticism. On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not "promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your responsibility to prove your claims. rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs posted by this troll. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1317
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest of world), that looks at things objectively. It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. |
#1318
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" writes:
Bill Z. wrote: On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest of world), that looks at things objectively. Let's define their "side" as the inside of the tiny little circle that includes Guy, Frank, and maybe 5 or 6 others who are not arguing on this thread at present. I used "side" to avoid typing their names---they are not worth the few extra keystrokes. :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1319
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention, not with those urging scepticism. On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not "promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your responsibility to prove your claims. rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs posted by this troll. It's interesting how the stuff you snip, which you claim offhand to be garbage, always seems to be the strongest arguments against your criticisms... I wonder to whom you think this tactic is convincing? -- Benjamin Lewis Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles. -- Frank Lloyd Wright |
#1320
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:54:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention, not with those urging scepticism. On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. As usual you have that precisely the wrong way round. Here's a simple test: who is proposing an intervention - helmet sceptics or helmet zealots? That tells you where the burden of proof should lie. That it seems to be required of the sceptics that we spend our lives reiterating the facts - that the studies are flawed and that there is no real-world evidence for efficacy - is testament to the strength of the True Believers' faith. rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages today Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". As usual. Oh, by the way, on the subject of evidence - which I notice you still didn't provide - no doubt you can give the posting references from which I supposedly copied & pasted the replies to which you object. After all, if you can't that would make you a liar, and we know that Zaumen Never Lies. For certain values of lie. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |