THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW 
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 5:17:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 11:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:01:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/7/2018 3:42 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 9:42:25 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/5/2018 3:41 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


Where I am there's virtually no talk about MANDATORY helmet laws.

IIRC, you're somewhere in Ontario. There's virtually no talk about
mandatory helmet laws there specifically because a group of cyclists -
including one who used to post here - successfully argued against them.
You should thank those cyclists for your freedom of choice.

BTW, a few years ago my wife and I did a driving and camping trip to
Cape Breton. While in a tiny town in New Brunswick, on a zero-traffic
Sunday evening, we rode our bikes a few blocks to a restaurant and back.
We were stopped on a residential street by a local cop and told that
helmets were mandatory for all ages everywhere in Canada. She was wrong,
of course. Yes, they are mandatory for all ages in NB and we knew that;
but we didn't even bring them along.

You'd be subject to the same nonsense if not for people you've argued
against.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Please show me where I argued against peoplec opposed to mandatory laws.

OK, Sir. You've obviously argued against me. You resurrected one of your
arguments just two days ago, starting with "Say that on this newsgroup
and within a post or two our resident anti-helmet poster will attack you
quite strongly." Was that not directed at me? If not me, it might have
been Tom.

Both Tom and I have argued against mandatory helmet laws, and we've
given reasons why. You've argued against us and argued against our
reasons. Therefore you you HAVE argued against people opposed to
mandatory helmet laws.

And I repeat: If not for the efforts of some of those same people, you'd
be subject to a MHL right now, just like the cyclists in New Brunswick..

--
- Frank Krygowski

BULL****! No where and at no t ime have I EVER stated that I am PRO mandatory helmet lawas. You are so anti-helmet that you can't even read a post about a helmet without you immediately foaming at the mouth and spouting that anyone wanting to wear a helmet has to be pro-mandatory helmet laws.

sigh Let's try again. You said "Please show me where I argued against
peoplec [sic] opposed to mandatory laws."

I showed where you argued against me, and I'm against mandatory helmet
laws. Therefore you DID argue against a person opposed to mandatory
helmet laws. And you have argued against others as well - including,
IIRC, a person who used to post here and who is largely responsible for
free choice of hat style in your own province.

Note, I didn't say you argued in favor of mandatory helmet laws. It
wasn't necessary to say that, because of your own phrasing of your "show
me" demand.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're weaseling, Franki-boy. Not only is it unbecoming for a man of your age to attempt limbo-dancing, your attempts to escape the consequences of your lie is morally pretty despicable. It is quite clear from the context that Ridealot meant that he never argued against the work of the *Canadian* opposer of mandatory helmet laws, and that he invited you to prove different, on pain of you being called a liar. As I said already, your attempt at a sophistry, in declaring that Ridealot has argued against you and that you are against mandatory helmet laws and that constitutes proof of your slander, is pretty childish. Your further explanation debases even that low achievement to kindergarten debating tactics.

You should just have apologized for carelessly causing a misunderstanding and moved on. That would have been the right thing to do, and would have been the end of it. But you're a graceless clown who will never admit you're in error.

I think, Franki-boy, that unless you can show, and quickly since you've already squandered one chance, where Ridealot argued against the particular Canadian opposer of legally mandated helmets who also posted here, and that he argued against him on that particular matter of helmet mandation, Ridealot has proven his case against you and is justified in calling you a slanderer and liar.

For myself, I'm perfectly satisfied that you cannot provide this proof, and that you therefore are admitting by your weaseling that you slandered Ridealot with a vicious lie that can get him ostracized in many cycling circles..

You're a liar, Frank Krygowski. Worse, you're vicious.

Andre Jute
Frank-boy's lies are starting to seem like an addiction. I wonder what he's on.