Cooler Helmet?

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:

>>>> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or
>>>> who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a
>>>> good idea. And make it personal because you're so emotionally
>>>> invested in your own narrow "intellectual" viewpoints.

>>> I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
>>> `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
>>> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.

>> Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for
>> "lying" to his customers because he insists they wear lids for test
>> rides in order to give them "a bit" of protection.
>>
>> Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting to
>> the practice, he name-calls him.
>>
>> Just one example of thousands.

> No, it is not. He did not attack someone for choosing to
> wear a helmet. Since there are thousands you can find a
> quote that unambiguously supports you.

Why don't YOU learn to read, MENSA? Show me where I said anyone attacked
anyone for "choosing to wear a helmet". (Hint: It's still right there.
Try to not move your lips. Got it yet?)

> I want to see a quote that supports your thesis that there
> are `anti-helmet zealots'.

You obviously don't pay attention.

Bill "the stars must be askew today?" S.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or
> >>>> who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a
> >>>> good idea. And make it personal because you're so emotionally
> >>>> invested in your own narrow "intellectual" viewpoints.
>
> >>> I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
> >>> `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
> >>> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.
>
> >> Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for
> >> "lying" to his customers because he insists they wear lids for test
> >> rides in order to give them "a bit" of protection.
> >>
> >> Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting to
> >> the practice, he name-calls him.
> >>
> >> Just one example of thousands.
>
> > No, it is not. He did not attack someone for choosing to
> > wear a helmet. Since there are thousands you can find a
> > quote that unambiguously supports you.
>
> Why don't YOU learn to read, MENSA? Show me where I said anyone attacked
> anyone for "choosing to wear a helmet". (Hint: It's still right there.
> Try to not move your lips. Got it yet?)

Yes. You wrote
> Attack anyone who's conservative. Or who thinks wearing a helmet while
> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea.

> > I want to see a quote that supports your thesis that there
> > are `anti-helmet zealots'.
>
> You obviously don't pay attention.

I still do not see the quote that supports the assertion you make:

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Bill "and yes, Mikey, there ARE anti-helmet zealots" S.

--
Michael Press

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative.
>>>>>> Or who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously"
>>>>>> is a good idea. And make it personal because you're so
>>>>>> emotionally invested in your own narrow "intellectual"
>>>>>> viewpoints.
>>
>>>>> I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
>>>>> `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
>>>>> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.
>>
>>>> Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for
>>>> "lying" to his customers because he insists they wear lids for test
>>>> rides in order to give them "a bit" of protection.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting
>>>> to the practice, he name-calls him.
>>>>
>>>> Just one example of thousands.
>>
>>> No, it is not. He did not attack someone for choosing to
>>> wear a helmet. Since there are thousands you can find a
>>> quote that unambiguously supports you.
>>
>> Why don't YOU learn to read, MENSA? Show me where I said anyone
>> attacked anyone for "choosing to wear a helmet". (Hint: It's still
>> right there. Try to not move your lips. Got it yet?)
>
> Yes. You wrote
>> Attack anyone who's conservative. Or who thinks wearing a helmet
>> while riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea.

Right. I did NOT say that the AHZs attack people for wearing helmets. I
said they attack people for ADVOCATING wearing helmets -- IOW "thinking (or
saying) that wearing a helmet is a good idea." (Sort of what it says!)

Examples on here abound. Someone posts something expressing the /opinion/
that wearing a helmet is a smart thing to do (good idea, if you will), and
gets flamed -- often with personal invectives -- for it. If you really
can't recall ANY examples of this, then you must have amnesia. (Maybe like
the guy in "Memento", which I just watched with my gf tonight.)

>>> I want to see a quote that supports your thesis that there
>>> are `anti-helmet zealots'.
>>
>> You obviously don't pay attention.
>
> I still do not see the quote that supports the assertion you make:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill "and yes, Mikey, there ARE anti-helmet zealots" S.

"Quote This" -- there are quite a few of 'em.

HTH, BS

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:24:39 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >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?
>>
>> Dude, the whole point of spending that sort of money is so you DON'T have to be
>> heard bragging in that way. You just show up with the fancy hat and the carbon
>> fiber.
>
>Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
>that's why people buy them in the first place.

How do you know that?

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 16:43:19 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Goes rather well with coming back to this
>"gosh, I just want an answer" BS a full 10 days after it had already been
>beaten to freaking death.

I still want an answer, so it's not BS. If it's true I find that very
informative and noteworthy. If it's not it'll embarrass Ozark. So I
really want an answer either way. Can you please ask him for me.

>RonSonic spelled it out for you rather concisely.
> Read it. Absorb it.

No, RonSonic described something different than what Ozarak described.
In fact, he said something that's sort of the opposite -- that people
don't have to talk about he price. (He even put the word "don't" in
all capital letters -- you missed an important word again. As I
suggested in the past,,you may want to read more carefully).

So yes, RonSonic is talking about bragging, but in a way that is quite
different than what Ozark claimed and that I am doubtful happens.

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:01:36 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>And you'll wait 10+ days to do it (even though the question HAS been
>answered by many people in the interim even if not by the original target of
>your stalking behavior*)?

I didn't have a plan to wait. I asked several times over the course
of three or four days, then asked again five or six days after that.
There was not plan -- I don't keep a schedule. I just remembered I
hadn't had an answer so I started asking again.

>*might be a clue why he won't give you the satisfaction...ya think?!?

I wasn't stalking him. I read a number of his posts that were clear
to me or believable to me or unimportant to me over the last week that
I made no response to. That one I replied to immediately upon reading
it the first time (and he didn't answer the question) and as you know
several times since since I want an answer.

PS -- other people have not answered the question. Other people have
described vaguely similar events -- people saying how much something
cost when another person started talking to them about the helmet, or
not talking about price (I described that I think). But not the same
thing.

JT


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

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >RonSonic wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:24:39 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> Dude, the whole point of spending that sort of money is so you DON'T have to be
> >> heard bragging in that way. You just show up with the fancy hat and the carbon
> >> fiber.
> >
> >Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
> >that's why people buy them in the first place.
>
> How do you know that?
>

"To troll is life, all the rest is just waiting." - John Foreversnips
Trollitsome

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 7 May 2006 05:06:52 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >RonSonic wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:24:39 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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?
>> >>
>> >> Dude, the whole point of spending that sort of money is so you DON'T have to be
>> >> heard bragging in that way. You just show up with the fancy hat and the carbon
>> >> fiber.
>> >
>> >Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
>> >that's why people buy them in the first place.
>>
>> How do you know that?
>>
>
>"To troll is life, all the rest is just waiting." -

It's not trolling. It's real curiousity combined with a disbelief
that you can know what these other people are thinking. I'm not
trying to attack *you* but I'm pointing out now that it's unlikely
that you know what you claim to know, and asking (seriously, not as a
troll) how you do know it.

I'm genuine -- I want to know how you know that.

JT

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 08:41:30 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>I'm genuine -- I want to know how you know that.
>
>JT

Dear John,

Cogito ergo sum?

(Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but I just couldn't
resist.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative.
> >>>>>> Or who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously"
> >>>>>> is a good idea. And make it personal because you're so
> >>>>>> emotionally invested in your own narrow "intellectual"
> >>>>>> viewpoints.
> >>
> >>>>> I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
> >>>>> `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
> >>>>> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.
> >>
> >>>> Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for
> >>>> "lying" to his customers because he insists they wear lids for test
> >>>> rides in order to give them "a bit" of protection.
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting
> >>>> to the practice, he name-calls him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just one example of thousands.
> >>
> >>> No, it is not. He did not attack someone for choosing to
> >>> wear a helmet. Since there are thousands you can find a
> >>> quote that unambiguously supports you.
> >>
> >> Why don't YOU learn to read, MENSA? Show me where I said anyone
> >> attacked anyone for "choosing to wear a helmet". (Hint: It's still
> >> right there. Try to not move your lips. Got it yet?)
> >
> > Yes. You wrote
> >> Attack anyone who's conservative. Or who thinks wearing a helmet
> >> while riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea.
>
> Right. I did NOT say that the AHZs attack people for wearing helmets. I
> said they attack people for ADVOCATING wearing helmets -- IOW "thinking (or
> saying) that wearing a helmet is a good idea." (Sort of what it says!)
>
> Examples on here abound.

So quote one already.

> Someone posts something expressing the /opinion/
> that wearing a helmet is a smart thing to do (good idea, if you will), and
> gets flamed -- often with personal invectives -- for it. If you really
> can't recall ANY examples of this, then you must have amnesia. (Maybe like
> the guy in "Memento", which I just watched with my gf tonight.)
>
> >>> I want to see a quote that supports your thesis that there
> >>> are `anti-helmet zealots'.
> >>
> >> You obviously don't pay attention.
> >
> > I still do not see the quote that supports the assertion you make:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Bill "and yes, Mikey, there ARE anti-helmet zealots" S.
>
> "Quote This" -- there are quite a few of 'em.
>
> HTH, BS

Does not help.

--
Michael Press

 

[dabac]

Let me guess: you're like most folks, who might consider a helmet for
rollerblading, but would never wear one ice skating. That just isn't
fashionable. Right?

Wrong. I do wear a helmet when I go ice skating, as well as knee pads and elbow pads.Same for inlines. Fashion requirements are very, very low on my list of considerations.

 

[dabac]

In article <[email protected]>,
dabac <[email protected]>
wrote:

> G.T. Wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > ... Helmets do nothing except protect one from minor
> > injuries such as cuts and bruises.
Though my name is in an attribution, none of the words are mine.

--
Michael Press

Then I apologise for the editing mistake.

 

[dabac]

RonSonic wrote:
>
> dabac wrote:
> >
> >So what if the helmet doesn't always save your life, there's a lot of
> >other injuries that you'd rather not have that it can protect you from.
>

The thing is, you can say the same for knee and elbow pads, a
mouthpiece, a leather jacket, sturdy knee-high boots, chest protector,
high-impact goggles, lumbar support belt, earplugs, etc.,

Of course you're right, there's always more that can be done to further reduce the consequences of a possible mishap. But for me the downside in terms of loss of comfort etc of wearing the helmet is absolutely marginal, so the tradeoff between loss and potential benefit(however unlikely that will be) becomes a no-brainer. Kneepads OTOH adds significant discomfort so I ride without them and hope for the best.
I have been considering adding a back plate though. If I'm already using a water bladder back pack there's not much further comfort to be lost by adding the back plate as well.

 

[41]

Sorni wrote:
> 41 wrote:
>Just bec ause I don't
> like to spew paragraphs upon paragraphs of self-indulgent blather just to
> read my own pearls of pseudo wisdom doesn't mean I ain't got none.

Well, in the overall context of all your posts, that's actually quite
funny.


> What would you have done if it had been Tom Delay who'd been busted for a
> DWI at 3 AM t his week? Spewed gobs of your hate-filled drivel, yes?

Since Delay is (apparently) out of politics and already under
prosecution, I really don't care about that. If he had still been in,
it would have been an unsatisfying shortcut: he should go to jail for
the crimes he has already committed against the nation and the public.
I don't want him committing any new ones, even just to get him in jail.
As for this incident: if the fellow had laundered money, gerrymandered
districts, accepted bribes and so forth, I would have considered it
same as above, only that it would in addition to damaging the general
public, have also damaged, a little bit, some of the progressive causes
I support. Since he has done none of these things, I wish him well.


> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative.

What are you talking about. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld nor
you are conservatives: you are radicals. No one who blows $14 trillion
dollars ($5 trillion surplus + $9 trillion latest debt ceiling, soon to
be extended again) can be called conservative. No one who blows even $1
can be called conservative. And that is just the beginning.

 

[[email protected]]

dabac wrote:
> [email protected] Wrote:
> >
> > Let me guess: you're like most folks, who might consider a helmet for
> > rollerblading, but would never wear one ice skating. That just isn't
> > fashionable. Right?
> >
>
> Wrong. I do wear a helmet when I go ice skating, as well as knee pads
> and elbow pads.Same for inlines. Fashion requirements are very, very
> low on my list of considerations.
>

And I see by a subsequent post that you're considering spinal
protection while riding your bike, but that knee pads don't make your
cut.

How about elbow pads? Not much risk of chafing, etc, so that should be
a good precaution too. Then there are shoulder pads and shin pads.
Lots of possibilities!

In any case, I'll give you rare points for consistency. Most people
posting from your point of view are passionate only about bicycling's
minor injuries. Yet they cheerily accept equivalent injury risks from
other activities. For example, they usually ignore the serious risks
and walk across streets in (gasp!) normal clothing.

OTOH, ordinary riding (or ordinary skating) with body armor sure seems
excessive to me!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[dabac]

.. I see by a subsequent post that you're considering spinal
protection while riding your bike, but that knee pads don't make your
cut.

I'm not entirely immune to comfort issues. Wearing a helmet has about the same impact on my comfort as wearing a baseball cap. If it only once saves me from a black eye, broken glasses or a split eyebrow I'll consider it effort well spent.

The back plate won't/doesn't add much discomfort (if any) on a ride if I already decided to use a backpack.
The knee pads that I have OTOH does add significant discomfort to cycling.

How about elbow pads?

That is actually a good question. Somehow I guess I've thought about kness and elbow pads as part of a set that are used together or not at all. Maybe I'll give it a go.

Then there are shoulder pads and shin pads. Lots of possibilities!

Yes, and a full set of racing leathers too!
As stated before, I'm not entirely immune to comfort issues. That is also gear that I haven't got, so I have to get myself motivated to do the initial purchase as well. Maybe next tumble will provide that motivation.

What I'd actually like to see, but haven't found, is some reinforced shorts similar to those availabe during the late 70s skateboard craze. They weren't actually padded (i.e. soft) but they had abrasion resistant patches sewn on to the areas you're likely to end up sliding on, like buttocks and hips. Particularly for inlines that would be a nice addition that seems likely to strike a favourable balance between protection added and comfort lost.

Most people posting from your point of view are passionate only about bicycling's minor injuries. Yet they cheerily accept equivalent injury risks from other activities.

I don't care much WHERE the risk is coming from, an injury hurts just as bad regardless of how you received it. If it's simple to reduce the risk, I try to do it wherever the situation occurs.

OTOH, ordinary riding (or ordinary skating) with body armor sure seems
excessive to me!

I don't see much need for body armor either, since my greatest risk is wipeout due to slippery surfaces rather than going ballistic through a badly judged jump. But I'd sure like to see those abrasion resistant shorts again!

Then again, it's not a controlled environment. The accident that prompted me to buy a back plate consisted of a teenager on a ski slope running straight into my back with sufficent speed to do some considerable damage. There's no way I could have foreseen that, and there was nothing in what I was doing at that particular time (maintaining speed and course..) that can be seen as contributing to the incident.
The route I use when I take the inlines home from work (20+ miles or so) does offer regular chances of random interaction with other travellers, so maybe this season will provide a reason to rethink that protection strategy as well.

 

[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 actually heard someone bragging about spending that much
for a helmet?

I suspect you're exagerrating about it, or even lying, but would
appreciate your clearing that up. If it's true, I'm also very
interested in the circumstances.

JT

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

 

[Sandy]

John Forrest Tomlinson a écrit :
> 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 actually heard someone bragging about spending that much
> for a helmet?
>
> I suspect you're exagerrating about it, or even lying, but would
> appreciate your clearing that up. If it's true, I'm also very
> interested in the circumstances.
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
>
Bye ...

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, John Forrest
Tomlinson ([email protected]) wrote:
> 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 actually heard someone bragging about spending that much
> for a helmet?

<URL:http://tinyurl.com/mgamx>

You can stop asking him now...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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 actually heard someone bragging about spending that much
> for a helmet?
>
> I suspect you're exagerrating about it, or even lying, but would
> appreciate your clearing that up. If it's true, I'm also very
> interested in the circumstances.
>
>

There's no business like troll business.......... ;-)