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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.