Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.

There is a thread running in URCM - originally about the bias of
cyclehelmets - but now about Risk Compensation.

My post has been rejected - as it is assumed that I cannot understand
English - as I had had to seek clarification over a comment.


Someone in URCM had recommended cyclehelmets.org - and I said that I
thought that they were a biased set of web pages.

I was asked to provide evidence of this bias.

I chose one of many examples - and I highlighted the fact that the
BHRF had, in my opinion, been less than honest - perhaps biased - in
their comments about a research paper when they had said:

"First empirical evidence of risk compensation when cycling. Injured
children who had worn helmets rode faster and suffered more damage to
their bikes."


I pointed out that the research was based on the fact that 4 children
who had been wearing a helmet, (whilst using a skateboard, or riding a
bike, or a scooter), and 5 who had chosen not to wear a helmet said
that they rode faster when wearing a helmet.

And I also said:

The authors themselves have concluded: "The main limitation of our
study is the small sample. Consequently, formal statistical analysis
was not justified, AND NO FIRM CONCLUSIONS COULD BE DRAWN added
capitals



Now to me that shows that what the BHRF said is quite a biased comment
- no qualification about sample size - or reference to the authors'
disclaimers.

I was happy to discuss this matter further - unfortunately it looks
like I will not be allowed to - due to my lack of English.

In answer to my comment:
"First empirical evidence of risk compensation when cycling. Injured
children who had worn helmets rode faster and suffered more damage to
their bikes."


Someone else then said:
Which is precisely right, that is what it is. Interestingly, they had
originally set out to prove the opposite of what they did find, which
rather undermines your claim that it is biased against helmet use.

Guy


Now I genuinely could not understand if this guy was referring to the
BHRF or the research paper "setting out to prove the opposite"


So I asked:

I am sorry - I do not understand.

Are you saying that BHRF set out to prove the opposite - or that Mok
set out to prove the opposite?

Please could you clarify.


And this is where I got the bum's rush from the moderator

"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"



Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.

In article ,
Ruper Bear's Brother wrote:
[some moderator wrote:]
"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"
....
Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.

I agree that the comment was inappropriate. The moderator has been
asked, by us, not to be rude in moderation comments.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ruper Bear's Brother wrote:
[some moderator wrote:]
"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"
...
Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.

I agree that the comment was inappropriate. The moderator has been
asked, by us, not to be rude in moderation comments.


have you now accepted the post?

pk

On 22 May 2010 15:39:38 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Ruper Bear's Brother wrote:
[some moderator wrote:]
"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"
...
Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.

I agree that the comment was inappropriate. The moderator has been
asked, by us, not to be rude in moderation comments.


Thank you

"Ruper Bear's Brother" wrote in message
...
Someone else then said:
Which is precisely right, that is what it is. Interestingly, they had
originally set out to prove the opposite of what they did find, which
rather undermines your claim that it is biased against helmet use.

Guy


Now I genuinely could not understand if this guy was referring to the
BHRF or the research paper "setting out to prove the opposite"


So I asked:

I am sorry - I do not understand.

Are you saying that BHRF set out to prove the opposite - or that Mok
set out to prove the opposite?

Please could you clarify.


And this is where I got the bum's rush from the moderator

"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"



Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.



What you have to remember is that Guy is the High Priest of the URC/M Helmet
Cult - his acolytes will strike down all who dare challenge his Holy Writ.

pk

On 22 May, 15:57, "pk" wrote:

"What you have to remember is that Guy is the"

jerk.

On 22/05/2010 15:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
In ,
Ruper Bear's wrote:
[some moderator wrote:]
"If you do not understand English, should you perhaps use newsgroups
in whatever your native language is?"
...
Now I really do think that that is an inappropriate comment to what
was quite a reasonable and polite request for clarification about
what the poster meant.

I agree that the comment was inappropriate. The moderator has been
asked, by us, not to be rude in moderation comments.

What's the mod's policy on people in blacklists posting under another nym?

pk wrote:

have you now accepted the post?

No. The post was felt inappropriate and any comment made does not
change that.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:51:11 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

pk wrote:

have you now accepted the post?

No. The post was felt inappropriate and any comment made does not
change that.



Absolutely - you cannot get more inappropriate than the following:


I am sorry - I do not understand.

Are you saying that BHRF set out to prove the opposite - or that Mok
set out to prove the opposite?

Please could you clarify.




It is an outrageous post:

on-topic, following on from the previous post, polite, succinct, etc
etc

I suppose it is too much to ask exactly *why* it is inappropriate?

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
What's the mod's policy on people in blacklists posting under another nym?

We would reject all their postings and report the abuser to their ISP.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657