Cooler Helmet?

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 05:05:11 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Methinks thou does't protest too much.
>
> Being called "deceitful" is worthy of protest. You used that word
> about me and it was completely wrong.
>
> An apology would be appropriate from you.

John, I already admitted to missing your use of the word "chances" at first;
AND said I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt re. "you" not
meaning "me". (Although, having re-read the ENTIRE THREAD because I have no
life, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd intrude in an exchange
between me and Greg to make your snarky comment /unless/ it was directed at
me. After all, it WAS a reply to my post.)

Having had back-&-forths with you before -- most recently (besides this one)
the "Mark Mocking" thing -- I think you purposely post in a misleading
manner quite often. That is, you trim content and context from your
replies, giving an inaccurate if not dishonest impression of the prior
discussion. If "deceitful" is too strong a word for that, then I'll
withdraw it. How does "disingenuous" strike you?

Sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

BS

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 16:37:30 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>- I think you purposely post in a misleading
> manner quite often.

There you go again. I don't.

I know you acknowledged missing the "chances" thing, but it's still a
fact that you misread two words in the sentence that set you off on
ragging on me, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

You simply got mad upon misreading something and are passing the blame
on to me. If you don't recognize that, that's lame. And if you do
recognize it and can't stop with your nonsense that I am intentionally
misleading you or anyone, then you're a *****.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 16:37:30 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> - I think you purposely post in a misleading
>> manner quite often.
>
> There you go again. I don't.
>
> I know you acknowledged missing the "chances" thing, but it's still a
> fact that you misread two words in the sentence that set you off on
> ragging on me, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
>
> You simply got mad upon misreading something and are passing the blame
> on to me. If you don't recognize that, that's lame. And if you do
> recognize it and can't stop with your nonsense that I am intentionally
> misleading you or anyone, then you're a *****.

Re-read the thread, John. Again.

I give up.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 May 2006 16:37:30 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> - I think you purposely post in a misleading
> >> manner quite often.
> >
> > There you go again. I don't.
> >
> > I know you acknowledged missing the "chances" thing, but it's still a
> > fact that you misread two words in the sentence that set you off on
> > ragging on me, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
> >
> > You simply got mad upon misreading something and are passing the blame
> > on to me. If you don't recognize that, that's lame. And if you do
> > recognize it and can't stop with your nonsense that I am intentionally
> > misleading you or anyone, then you're a *****.
>
> Re-read the thread, John. Again.
>
> I give up.

Good move.

When having an "exchange" with Tomlinson, it is good to bear this in
mind: "never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their
level and beat you with experience".

(I only wish I had come to this bit of wisdom earlier. :->)

 

[Samatha]

Just some minor corrections and further information for those who want
the precision... grin. Like engineers such as myself, perhaps?

1. Samatha, not Samantha, or just Sam if that's easier.
2. It was eight pounds - I weighed one afterward, astonished by how
HARD I'd been struck.
3. It was 20 feet minus my height at a deep-knee squat (I was cleaning
a low orifice of the equipment, almost completely sat down, but not
quite able to reach from fully-seated). I'm 5'4", so allowing four feet
for my head height at a deep squat might be conservative, but close.
4. The blow didn't damage the plastic hardhat. It might not have been
perfectly square, since it did cause me (in reaction) to roll off feet
onto my butt, and slightly canting left, but it was centered well
enough that it bounced UP a bit before falling once more to the
concrete. I'm glad it was, actually - getting whacked twice by the same
falling object would have been quite annoying.

I'm just real glad I was wearing the hard hat, instead of pausing and
removing it to wipe sweat or something, at that particular second.

Samatha

 

[[email protected]]

On 3 May 2006 13:52:04 -0700, "Samatha"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just some minor corrections and further information for those who want
>the precision... grin. Like engineers such as myself, perhaps?
>
>1. Samatha, not Samantha, or just Sam if that's easier.
>2. It was eight pounds - I weighed one afterward, astonished by how
>HARD I'd been struck.
>3. It was 20 feet minus my height at a deep-knee squat (I was cleaning
>a low orifice of the equipment, almost completely sat down, but not
>quite able to reach from fully-seated). I'm 5'4", so allowing four feet
>for my head height at a deep squat might be conservative, but close.
>4. The blow didn't damage the plastic hardhat. It might not have been
>perfectly square, since it did cause me (in reaction) to roll off feet
>onto my butt, and slightly canting left, but it was centered well
>enough that it bounced UP a bit before falling once more to the
>concrete. I'm glad it was, actually - getting whacked twice by the same
>falling object would have been quite annoying.
>
>I'm just real glad I was wearing the hard hat, instead of pausing and
>removing it to wipe sweat or something, at that particular second.
>
>Samatha

Dear Sam,

Aaargh! I have a bad history of mis-spelling names.

Sorry,

Carl Fogel

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Mike Reed <[email protected]>:
>Ugh, I'm talking about the same resultant kinetic energy for the same
>objects. A sign post hitting you with the same energy with which you
>hit a sign post, in the same location on your mellon, the helmet
>behaves the same.

Very true, the guff about "same resultant kinetic energy" aside, which
basically doesn't mean anything at all.

But if a moving object hits you, the brain will be damaged only if the
object penetrates helmet and skull. Hence, hardshell helmets (and skulls)
for being hit with stuff.

Conversely, if you are the moving object, penetration is not the primary
issue; penetration or no, the brain will be subject to a decelerative
force and minimising the magnitude of that force is the issue; an impact
sufficient to penetrate the skull would kill you anyway from the
deceleration. Hence squishy helmets for hitting stuff while moving
yourself.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, May.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]>:
>On the second point, yes, helmets might "dangerize" cycling to some extent,
>but as I pointed out in a another post, we have, in fact, implemented a vast
>array of different mechanisms to make auto travel less dangerous, and very
>few would currently argue that seat belts and air bags don't, in fact, save
>lives and reduce serious injury.

In fact the introduction of a mandatory seatbelt law in the UK did not
have any noticeable effect on driver injuries - that old risk compensation
at work - and coincided (possibly by chance) with an increase in
pedestrian KSIs.

If I wanted to reduce road deaths I'd ban all driver restraint devices and
mount 6 inch spikes on steering wheels.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, May.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Samatha <[email protected]>:
>VERY sore or injured. Sure these aren't likely, but I don't care about
>generalities and statistics, I care about keeping my own sweaty noggin'
>in one functioning - and not sore! - piece.

One person dies of an adder bite in the UK every few decades. Should I
wear heavy boots at all times when outdoors? After all, that's just a
generality and a statistic. I care about not suffering a fatal snakebite
myself.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, May.

 

[41]

Samatha wrote:
> Just some minor corrections and further information for those who want
> the precision... grin. Like engineers such as myself, perhaps?
>
> 1. Samatha, not Samantha, or just Sam if that's easier.
> 2. It was eight pounds - I weighed one afterward, astonished by how
> HARD I'd been struck.
> 3. It was 20 feet minus my height at a deep-knee squat (I was cleaning
> a low orifice of the equipment, almost completely sat down, but not
> quite able to reach from fully-seated). I'm 5'4", so all owing four feet
> for my head height at a deep squat might be conservative, but close.
> 4. The blow didn't damage the plastic hardhat. It might not have been
> perfectly square, since it did cause me (in reaction) to roll off feet
> onto my butt, and sli ghtly canting left, but it was centered well
> enough that it bounced UP a bit before falling once more to the
> concrete. I'm glad it was, actually - getting whacked twice by the same
> falling object would have been quite annoying.
>
> I'm just real gl ad I was wearing the hard hat, instead of pausing and
> removing it to wipe sweat or something, at that particular second.

You might be able to educate a few people here who don't know a hard
hat from a hole in the ground by describing what your hard hat is made
of and how it is contructed, and how different that is from a bicycle
helmet. These are the people who think it doesn't matter whether it is
the head that slams into an immobile object or an object that slams
into an at rest head, because they heard a phrase from physics on TV or
in a comic book.

By the way, I still suggest your vision might be improved with aspheric
lenses for your glasses. If the lenses are thick and large, it must
help.

 

[Samatha]

I'm sure anyone who really wants to know about hard hat construction
can look up their own source - it wouldn't be hard to find one more
expert than I. After all, I just use them, I haven't ever made them, or
even studied the process in detail.

As for aspheric lenses, I'll look into them the next time, to see if it
is possible from a cost/availability standpoint.

 

[41]

Samatha wrote:
> I'm sure anyone who really wants to know about hard hat construction

The reason I asked is that it is clear that certain people here are
trying really hard to avoid knowing and to pretend there is no
difference between them and bicycle helmets.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 23:53:49 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Re-read the thread, John. Again.

You are the one that cannot read -- you have had to admit missing a
word that had major meaning in one of my sentences, and then I had to
point out to you that you were inserting a word into the sentence (a
*simple* word -- the word "you") that simply wasn't there, thus
changing the meaning.

So I ask you to, in the future, please re-read what I write several
times before coming to any conclusions about my meaning -- I think you
have demonstrated a need to take that level of care.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 2 May 2006 17:49:12 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[some lame chime-in **** like a baby]

You know, if would really help if you would actually answer simple
factual questions. For example, have you ever actually heard someone
bragging about paying $189 for a helmet? Or were you lying about
that? Or exaggerating to make a point?

You could clear it up with a:

"Yes"
or
"No, I was lying"
or
"No, I was exagerrating to make a point."

Simple question.

I *think* you were lying, but you can clear it up easily.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 2 May 2006 17:49:12 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [some lame chime-in **** like a baby]
>
> You know, if would really help if you would actually answer simple
> factual questions. For example, have you ever actually heard someone
> bragging about paying $189 for a helmet? Or were you lying about
> that? Or exaggerating to make a point?
>
> You could clear it up with a:
>
> "Yes"
> or
> "No, I was lying"
> or
> "No, I was exagerrating to make a point."
>
> Simple question.
>
> I *think* you were lying, but you can clear it up easily.
>

--->Sequence of events:

1) Read Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

2) Remind myself: Don't argue with idiots

3) Ignore Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

4) Smile )

And so it will be going forward.

Bye-bye, lil' Johnny!

)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 2 May 2006 17:49:12 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [some lame chime-in **** like a baby]
>
> You know, if would really help if you would actually answer simple
> factual questions. For example, have you ever actually heard someone
> bragging about paying $189 for a helmet? Or were you lying about
> that? Or exaggerating to make a point?
>
> You could clear it up with a:
>
> "Yes"
> or
> "No, I was lying"
> or
> "No, I was exagerrating to make a point."
>
> Simple question.
>
> I *think* you were lying, but you can clear it up easily.
>

--->Sequence of events:

1) Read Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

2) Remind myself: Don't argue with idiots

3) Ignore Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

4) Smile )

And so it will be going forward.

Bye-bye, lil' Johnny!

)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 2 May 2006 17:49:12 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [some lame chime-in **** like a baby]
>
> You know, if would really help if you would actually answer simple
> factual questions. For example, have you ever actually heard someone
> bragging about paying $189 for a helmet? Or were you lying about
> that? Or exaggerating to make a point?
>
> You could clear it up with a:
>
> "Yes"
> or
> "No, I was lying"
> or
> "No, I was exagerrating to make a point."
>
> Simple question.
>
> I *think* you were lying, but you can clear it up easily.
>

--->Sequence of events:

1) Read Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

2) Remind myself: Don't argue with idiots

3) Ignore Tomlinson's aggressive, argumentative, off topic troll and
personal attack

4) Smile )

And so it will be going forward.

Bye-bye, lil' Johnny!

)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Ozark, have you ever actually heard someone bragging about paying $189
> for a helmet?
>
> I'm not the only person who has asked you this. At least one other
> person, who apperently had no animosity* to you, asked also. And yet
> you didn't answer him.
>
> It's a simple question.
>
> JT
>
> * Though, if you were lying, you might view his query with some
> animosity yourself.
>
>

You seem to have snipped all the prior content and context, so I'm sure
I just don't know *what* you are going on about, lil' Johnny.

BTW, knock yerself out, you'll get no further responses from me.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

Ozark, have you ever actually heard someone bragging about paying $189
for a helmet?

I'm not the only person who has asked you this. At least one other
person, who apperently had no animosity* to you, asked also. And yet
you didn't answer him.

It's a simple question.

JT

* Though, if you were lying, you might view his query with some
animosity yourself.


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".

Have you ever heard someone bragging in that way, or are you just
making it up to illustrate a point?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************