|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1871
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Kunich" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is worth rather than talk about the real issues.) In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea) Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04) In case you don't know, both are consistent positions. You can be in favor of normal trade relations with China - treating China the same as other countries - and still want to make sure that our government looks after the interests of American workers, not the Bush ruling class. Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you. Yep, it's consistent. I'll ignore the rest of your propaganda - it is an obvious cut and paste job from the usual right-wing lunatic fringe. You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you? Looks like Kunich is a real piece of work, doesn't it. He can't even spell his favorite word. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#1872
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his other posts back in the time-out. Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not listening" [ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple times by multiple posters ] So, having been proven wrong by your own data, you have the following three possible choices: 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. 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 |
#1873
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled: Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his other posts back in the time-out. Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not listening" 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. [ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple times by multiple posters ] So, having [ snip repetition of Guy's continued cut and paste from his previous posts ]. 3. shut up. Once again, Guy is whining like a little boy. What an infant. To Guy a hint, you will not get anywhere by acting like a little boy. I think I made the point clearly enough, regardless of your attempts to misrepresent the data (and that is what you are doing.) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1874
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1875
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1876
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1877
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1878
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#1879
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1880
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet law can save lives | Garrison Hilliard | General | 146 | May 19th 04 05:42 AM |
A Pleasant Helmet Debate | Stephen Harding | General | 12 | February 26th 04 06:32 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |