Helmets

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:14:27 -0500, Bill Henry <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Similar situation:

I crashed my bike into the back of a car that stopped suddenly when I
was about 13 years old. I was going maybe 15-20 mph.

I smashed into the back of this SUV, and actually made a dent in the
metal with my head and fell to the ground.

The whole front of the bike was smashed. The headset, the front fork,
the handlebars - everything.

I tossed my bike in the ditch and walked home, a little dazed but
otherwise unhurt.

No helmet.

-Bill H.

Yeah, but that explains a lot.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Bill Henry said:

Similar situation:

I crashed my bike into the back of a car that stopped suddenly when I
was about 13 years old. I was going maybe 15-20 mph.

I smashed into the back of this SUV, and actually made a dent in the
metal with my head and fell to the ground.

The whole front of the bike was smashed. The headset, the front fork,
the handlebars - everything.

I tossed my bike in the ditch and walked home, a little dazed but
otherwise unhurt.

No helmet.

And to complete the blindingly obvious, for the people in deep denial:

If Bill H. _had_ been wearing a helmet, every helmet promoter withing a
mile would have been shouting "Your helmet saved your life!!!!"

This (as well as other facts) indicate that many, probably most, of the
"My helmet saved my life!" stories are [censored]. They're sincere
[censored], but [censored] nonetheless.

- Frank Krygowski

Jeff Starr said:

Yeah, but that explains a lot.

Jeff, seriously: Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

Really, why not try to find some intelligent point to make? Unless
you're under 13, you're demeaning yourself with your posts.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Since you're new, I'll write once again about an incident I
witnessed.

"Witnessed" is a curious word, according to your own account.

You're _really_ reaching, Bill.

Disagree. You were very close to the incident, but did not SEE it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My family and some friends had just left a restaurant in a large
city, and were walking toward the car. Up ahead a tour bus was
parked by the side of the narrow street, facing away from us. A
woman driving the same direction was passing the bus.

At the instant she passed the front of the bus, a college-age kid
came zooming across the front of the bus into her path. She hit
the kid, HARD. We were something less than half a block behind. I
heard the sickening crash. I saw the kid's body tossed in the air
higher than the car's roof, upside down. The car screetched to a
halt and the kid came down in front of it. I later heard he landed
on his head on the road.

You didn't see it, though. (You didn't see the impact, either,
apparently; you "heard the sickening crash".)

I heard the crash. I saw the inverted body of the victim in the air
in front of the car, head higher than the car's roof, feet above the
head. I talked to the victim, the car driver, the car passenger, and
the EMT who saw the incident from the front.

Sounds like you had an agenda. Still, you did not "witness" the accident.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You THINK his head smashed the car's windshield and wiper. You
HEARD he landed on his head. Might well have been his shoulder
and/or hip.

Odd. The victim himself said he landed on his head. I admit, I don't
know if the EMT who had a better view than I actually confirmed that
(it's been at least five years now) but he certainly didn't contradict
him.

The victim also said he thought it was the windshield wiper that cut
his head when his head hit the wiper and windshield. I suppose he may
not have been paying attention, though.

However, I've seen several computer simulations of cars hitting peds,
and seen one video of a crash-test-dummy impact. The legs and lower
body tend to rotate out, the head and torso tend to rotate down into
the car. It's consistent with what the victim described.

Of course his head was /there/; I just don't ASSUME it took the brunt of the
impact like you do. (A cut from the wiper is consistent with landing on his
shoulder and, well, getting cut on the head by the wiper!)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did his helmet save his life? Absolutely not. He wore no helmet.

But if he _had_ worn a helmet, there's no doubt that everyone -
off-duty EMT, policeman, ambulance driver, ER personell - would have
said it had. There's no doubt the helmet would have been badly
smashed, if not in pieces. But again, he had no head injury but a
tiny scratch.

Lots of assumptions there.

Lots of desparate denial on your part! Which assumptions don't you
like?

Just the ones where you declare what others /would have said/ had the
situation been completely different. (After all, how many pedestrians wear
helmets?) Also what /would have happened/ to that non-existent foam lid.
Might not have had a mark on it! (And please note there's no desperation on
my part at all. I just think your little anecdote doesn't prove anything --
the same way you always jump on OTHER people's anecdotes indicated that a
helmet saved their life. Can't have it both ways, Frank.)

BTW, you snipped this, so I'll paste it back:

Quoted message said:

Yet most people feel there is nothing is so obnoxious as a true
believer trying to convert others.

Right. So cut it out.

I won't hold my breath.

Bill

Quoted message said:

Bill Henry said:

Similar situation:

I crashed my bike into the back of a car that stopped suddenly when I
was about 13 years old. I was going maybe 15-20 mph.

I smashed into the back of this SUV, and actually made a dent in the
metal with my head and fell to the ground.

The whole front of the bike was smashed. The headset, the front
fork, the handlebars - everything.

I tossed my bike in the ditch and walked home, a little dazed but
otherwise unhurt.

No helmet.

Quoted message said:

And to complete the blindingly obvious, for the people in deep denial:

If Bill H. _had_ been wearing a helmet, every helmet promoter withing
a mile would have been shouting "Your helmet saved your life!!!!"

There you go again.

OK, wait. You DID say helmet /promoter/, so maybe you're right. The only
problem is that you think EVERYONE who thinks wearing a cycling helmet makes
good sense is a "promoter". I call [censored] :-D

Bill "do WTF you want" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> Since you're new, I'll write once again about an incident I
> witnessed.

"Witnessed" is a curious word, according to your own account.

You're _really_ reaching, Bill.

Disagree. You were very close to the incident, but did not SEE it.

Hmmm. Odd. The policeman treated me, my wife, my daughter and our
friends as witnesses. The fact that we saw it from behind the car
didn't disqualify us in _his_ eyes. But I'm sure that five years
later, never having seen even the location, your judgement should
prevail! :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I heard the crash. I saw the inverted body of the victim in the air
in front of the car, head higher than the car's roof, feet above the
head. I talked to the victim, the car driver, the car passenger, and
the EMT who saw the incident from the front.

Sounds like you had an agenda.

:-) Yes, due to my dedication to my agenda, I staged the incident.
That makes all the difference!

Quoted message said:

Still, you did not "witness" the accident.

You're _really_ reaching.

Quoted message said:

Of course his head was /there/; I just don't ASSUME it took the brunt of the
impact like you do. (A cut from the wiper is consistent with landing on his
shoulder and, well, getting cut on the head by the wiper!)

If you can find where I said "his head took the brunt of the impact,"
you'll need to point it out to me. IIRC, I never said that.

But the larger point is, something happened that allowed this kid to
(according to his statement) destroy the windshield with his head and
land on his head from a height higher than a car. This is _exactly_
the kind of incident that generates the "My helmet saved my life!"

Have you been telling those people that their head must not have taken
the brunt of the impact?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lots of desparate denial on your part! Which assumptions don't you
like?

Just the ones where you declare what others /would have said/ had the
situation been completely different.

Oh please. We've had a poster here who was told by an ER doctor that
his helmet saved his life, when the poster was not wearing one. You
think this would have been different?

Quoted message said:

(After all, how many pedestrians wear
helmets?)

Obviously not enough, since their fatality count and fatality rate
exceed those of cyclists! But somehow, only cycling gets the attention
of the helmet nannies!

Quoted message said:

Also what /would have happened/ to that non-existent foam lid.
Might not have had a mark on it!

:-) All those who think a styrofoam bike helmet would allow a head to
smash in a car windshield without a mark on it, please raise your hand!

I think I see the problem, Bill. You really _do_ think foam hats are
magic!

Quoted message said:

(And please note there's no desperation on
my part at all. I just think your little anecdote doesn't prove anything --
the same way you always jump on OTHER people's anecdotes indicated that a
helmet saved their life. Can't have it both ways, Frank.)

I will say this: I've been mentioning this incident from time to time
for roughly five years. (It may have been more - I'd have to check.)
You are the first person who has refused to understand the point - or,
alternately, been incapable of understanding the point.

Quoted message said:

BTW, you snipped this, so I'll paste it back:

Quoted message said:

Yet most people feel there is nothing is so obnoxious as a true
believer trying to convert others.

Right. So cut it out.

As I understand the phrase, a "true believer" is a person with a
religious conviction that can't be swayed by evidence.

I'll let others re-read this post and decide to whom that phrase
applies.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Jeff Starr said:

Yeah, but that explains a lot.

Jeff, seriously: Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

Really, why not try to find some intelligent point to make? Unless
you're under 13, you're demeaning yourself with your posts.

- Frank Krygowski

Well Frank, seeing as you are such a fact based guy, why don't you
pull up all of my posts to rec.bicycle.misc and tech, then tell me
what the percentage really is. I would say that my posts that offer or
ask information, far outway my "silly wisecracks". Whether the content
is factual, that would vary. Often we post opinions and preferences.
For example, one of my preferences is that I wear a helmet. I wear it
for what it can do. And no I won't debate that with you.

Demeaning myself in your eyes, doesn't mean much. Coming from someone
who can't let a mention of a helmet go unchallenged. Your anti-helmet
fanaticism has so obviously become an obsession, that I think you are
losing it. Geez Frank, give it a rest.

I'll be waiting for those hard numbers, on the value of my posts. I
would also expect a correction, if you find that your claim that I
"post nothing but silly wisecracks" is wrong.

Life is Good!
Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> writes:

Hey Bill, just FYI the following was embedded in your post:

Quoted message said:

begin 666 evil.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `0`*$```@(" ````4%!?___R'_"TY%5%-#05!%,BXP`P$````A
M^00%"@```"P`````$ `0```"0(0=J<>0`F-J(5IYZMT!C6T-G39\5PD]0HFN
M;*J!UZ-R%2TJNBBHXO\+F$8]H3!X0Z2 QE1&HL P:M!&1M=A% ``(?Z>1&EE
M<V4@86YI;6EE<G1E($=)1BU$871E:2!W=7)D92!M:70@56QE860@1TE&($%N
M:6UA=&]R(&5R<W1E;&QT+B!"97-U8VAE;B!3:64@9OQR(&UE:'(@26YF;W)M
M871I;VYE;B!U;G-E<F4@5V5B<V5I=&4@=6YT97(@:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYW96)U
M=&EL:71I97,N9&4N`5534U!#350`(?\+4$E!3EE'248R+C V0FEL9"!V;VX@
M9&5R(%IW:7-C:&5N86)L86=E`5!E<G-O;O9N;&EC:&5R($MO;6UE;G1A<@$`
"`#L`

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> writes:

Hey Bill, just FYI the following was embedded in your post:

Quoted message said:

begin 666 evil.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `0`*$```@(" ````4%!?___R'_"TY%5%-#05!%,BXP`P$````A
M^00%"@```"P`````$ `0```"0(0=J<>0`F-J(5IYZMT!C6T-G39\5PD]0HFN
M;*J!UZ-R%2TJNBBHXO\+F$8]H3!X0Z2 QE1&HL P:M!&1M=A% ``(?Z>1&EE
M<V4@86YI;6EE<G1E($=)1BU$871E:2!W=7)D92!M:70@56QE860@1TE&($%N
M:6UA=&]R(&5R<W1E;&QT+B!"97-U8VAE;B!3:64@9OQR(&UE:'(@26YF;W)M
M871I;VYE;B!U;G-E<F4@5V5B<V5I=&4@=6YT97(@:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYW96)U
M=&EL:71I97,N9&4N`5534U!#350`(?\+4$E!3EE'248R+C V0FEL9"!V;VX@
M9&5R(%IW:7-C:&5N86)L86=E`5!E<G-O;O9N;&EC:&5R($MO;6UE;G1A<@$`
"`#L`

Hey Tom,

I copied and pasted a tiny snippet that Frank had trimmed, and apparently
re-posted smiley thingies don't transfer like regular text.

Despite the "evil" name, it was harmless 🙂 *

Bill " * oh-oh, don't copy/paste THAT one" S.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Hey Tom,

I copied and pasted a tiny snippet that Frank had trimmed, and apparently
re-posted smiley thingies don't transfer like regular text.

Despite the "evil" name, it was harmless 🙂 *

Heh. Good thing I didn't put "Virus Alert" in the subject
line. Anyhoo, nobody was hurt. That's the main thing.

I actually have detected real malignancies in postings
in the past, like "begin 644 Happy99.exe M35I0``(``` ..."

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

I submit that on or about 31 Jul 2005 11:54:29 -0700, the person known
to the court as "Jimmy Crawfish" <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

So, I guess the whole point of this story is that sometimes cyclists
get into accidents that don't involve head injury. Brilliant!

Make that "mostly" and you'll be closer to the mark. Over 2/3 of
cyclist hospitalisations in the UK are *not* head injuries (I have the
detailed figures from the Department of Health).

Quoted message said:

I assume that not every "my helmet saved my life" story is true, but it
is equally dangerous to discount every such story.

Why? It is a documented fact that, overall, helmets have no effect on
serious or fatal head injuries. The largest study ever conducted
showed that they are associated with a slightly *higher* risk of
death, in fact. So discounting "helmet saved my life" anecdotes seems
like a prudent starting point, there being very little in the way of
evidence to show that helmets are capable of actually saving lives. I
suggest you look at the standards some time.

Quoted message said:

Why don't you
conduct this little experiment: First, have someone whop you upside
the head with a baseball bat while wearing a helmet. Then, take the
helmet off and let them do it again. I know which one I would prefer.

It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before this old chestnut came
up. You could have googled for helmet and "baseball bat" in the
archives and you would have realised that it lacks novelty!

So, try this experiment: First, have someone hit you on the head with
a baseball bat while you are wearing a helmet. Now take the helmet
off. Would you still let them hit you? I think not! It's called
risk compensation, a well-documented phenomenon which shows that you
cannot realistically isolate the effects of an incident from the
probability of its happening in the first place.

There is also the fact that it is perfectly possible to cause someone
a serious or fatal head injury using a baseball bat even if they are
wearing a helmet.

And most of all, the majority of serious and fatal cyclist injuries
are sustained in a type of crash which goes far beyond the protective
capacity of even motor racing helmets.

Quoted message said:

The point is that when it comes to smashing your head against a
windshield or concrete pavement, a helmet is goint to help prevent
blunt head trauma, i.e., cracking your head open.

Up to a point. It will reduce the energy of, for example, a 30mph
closing speed to that of a 27.5mph closing speed, provided the helmet
does not fail (which is quite likely, as many do fail the standards
tests). If it does fail, the energy absorbed will be much lower.
Helmets do not absorb any of the rotational forces which are
implicated in the worst kinds of brain injuries.

And since there is no reduction in serious and fatal head injuries in
populations where helmet use increases sharply, the probability of
collision may well be higher in the case of the helmeted cyclist.

Quoted message said:

And as for peds vs. cyclists, you can be a cautious ped by looking both
ways before you cross a street, but even the most cautious cycler can
be laid out by by a pick up truck.

As can even the most cautious ped. And the head injury rate (i.e.
percentage of injuries which are head injuries) is the same in
pedestrians and cyclists. But there are many more pedestrians
injured. Always wear your helmet when crossing the road! Unlike
cycling, crossing the road is actually dangerous!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:49:47 GMT, the person
known to the court as "Cully_J" <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

You're correct, the pick up truck will hit you no matter how cautious you
are.

That is probably the most stupid comment in this subthread to date.
Do you genuinely believe that a cyclist can do *nothing* to influence
their chances of being hit? I suggest you take an Effective Cycling
course as a matter of some urgency.

Quoted message said:

And it hits you whether or not you're wearing a helmet. So would you
rather get hit wearing a helmet or just your skull?

Overall the evidence is that helmet wearing rates have no influence on
head injury rates, so that is very clearly the wrong question. A
brief look at the standards will reveal why. One of the standards
even states in its introduction that it does not apply to collisions
involving motor traffic.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Cully_J said:

You're correct, the pick up truck will hit you no matter how cautious you
are. And it hits you whether or not you're wearing a helmet. So would you
rather get hit wearing a helmet or just your skull?

You sure about that, collisions are easy to avoid, simply don't be in
the same space as something else, at the same time. That means if the
pickup truck can't stop, then even though you have the right of way, you
may be forced to stop. Yes you are then permitted to yell something
like "Watch where your going, road hog". Always proceed through
intersections with stop signs, with caution, some people wouldn't see
them, if they were 75m across.

W

Jeff Starr said:

Quoted message said:

Jeff Starr said:

Yeah, but that explains a lot.

Jeff, seriously: Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

Really, why not try to find some intelligent point to make? Unless
you're under 13, you're demeaning yourself with your posts.

- Frank Krygowski

Well Frank, seeing as you are such a fact based guy, why don't you
pull up all of my posts to rec.bicycle.misc and tech, then tell me
what the percentage really is. I would say that my posts that offer or
ask information, far outway my "silly wisecracks". Whether the content
is factual, that would vary. Often we post opinions and preferences.
For example, one of my preferences is that I wear a helmet. I wear it
for what it can do. And no I won't debate that with you.

Demeaning myself in your eyes, doesn't mean much. Coming from someone
who can't let a mention of a helmet go unchallenged. Your anti-helmet
fanaticism has so obviously become an obsession, that I think you are
losing it. Geez Frank, give it a rest.

I'll be waiting for those hard numbers, on the value of my posts. I
would also expect a correction, if you find that your claim that I
"post nothing but silly wisecracks" is wrong.

OK, I apologize. My phrasing was bad. You certainly have made posts
that are more than silly wisecracks. (Similarly, I frequently do let
mention of a helmet go unchallenged.)

But, to correct my phrasing:

Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post messages that are nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

- Frank Krygowski

Jimmy Crawfish said:

I assume that not every "my helmet saved my life" story is true, but it
is equally dangerous to discount every such story. Why don't you
conduct this little experiment: First, have someone whop you upside
the head with a baseball bat while wearing a helmet. Then, take the
helmet off and let them do it again. I know which one I would prefer.

The point is that when it comes to smashing your head against a
windshield or concrete pavement, a helmet is goint to help prevent
blunt head trauma, i.e., cracking your head open.

And as for peds vs. cyclists, you can be a cautious ped by looking both
ways before you cross a street, but even the most cautious cycler can
be laid out by by a pick up truck.

And so your implications are:

Helmets certainly provide worthwhile protection.

Cycling is dangerous enough that head protection is certainly needed.

Neither is shown to be true when one examines large population data.
The claims that these astonishingly weak helmets offer terrific
protection come from very poorly constructed studies, as we've
discussed many times. The results from large population time-series
studies indicate helmets are very ineffective against anything but
minor injuries.

The idea that cycling is especially dangerous is also false, assuming
you're talking about ordinary riding on ordinary roads. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
for some detailed information.

The terrible danger of cycling was manufactured by Bell and their
cronies. Before there were helmets to promote, nobody worried a bit
about serious head injuries when bicycling. The product came first,
then the fear-based marketing.

And now we have an entire generation of guys (and their mommies) who
think they're risking their life any time they balance on two wheels!
Astonishing!

Cycling helmets are an ineffective solution to a greatly exaggerated
problem.

- Frank Krygowski

Cully_J said:

You're correct, the pick up truck will hit you no matter how cautious you
are.

??? If you think a cyclist can do nothing to avoid getting hit by a
motor vehicle, you've got LOTS to learn!

Perhaps this lack of knowledge explains your apparent fear of riding.
Perhaps you should learn a bit about proper riding techniques.

Quoted message said:

And it hits you whether or not you're wearing a helmet. So would you
rather get hit wearing a helmet or just your skull?

What kind of truck-bike collision are you envisioning? If you think a
helmet is going to do anything significant, it must be a very gentle
collision indeed.

The certification test for a bike helmets consists of strapping a
helmet on a magnesium model of a head - no body attached - and dropping
it from roughly a six foot height. They measure the linear
acceleration of the decapitated head, not any rotational acceleration
(although the latter is reckoned to be much more damaging). The impact
speed is only about 14 mph.

And since that weak test is all the helmet has to pass, helmet
manufacturers constantly work to remove styrofoam and add holes. They
want minimum weight and maximum ventilation while just barely passing
that test.

So you're buying something intended to protect your decapitated head in
a 14 mph impact, provided the impact is exactly square - no twisting
involved. Not surprising that their effectiveness in the real world
isn't great!

If you envision the most common car-bike crash, where an oncoming motor
vehicle turns across your path and you run into the vehicle, you might
ask yourself how slowly you're planning on cycling. And hope that
oncoming vehicle isn't moving faster than, say, 10 mph.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well Frank, seeing as you are such a fact based guy, why don't you
pull up all of my posts to rec.bicycle.misc and tech, then tell me
what the percentage really is. I would say that my posts that offer or
ask information, far outway my "silly wisecracks". Whether the content
is factual, that would vary. Often we post opinions and preferences.
For example, one of my preferences is that I wear a helmet. I wear it
for what it can do. And no I won't debate that with you.

Demeaning myself in your eyes, doesn't mean much. Coming from someone
who can't let a mention of a helmet go unchallenged. Your anti-helmet
fanaticism has so obviously become an obsession, that I think you are
losing it. Geez Frank, give it a rest.

I'll be waiting for those hard numbers, on the value of my posts. I
would also expect a correction, if you find that your claim that I
"post nothing but silly wisecracks" is wrong.

OK, I apologize. My phrasing was bad. You certainly have made posts
that are more than silly wisecracks. (Similarly, I frequently do let
mention of a helmet go unchallenged.)

But, to correct my phrasing:

Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post messages that are nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

- Frank Krygowski

No!

Life is Good!
Jeff

Jeff Starr said:

Quoted message said:

Doesn't it _ever_ embarrass you to post messages that are nothing but
silly wisecracks with no factual content?

No!

Ah well. I'd say "pity"...

except that I don't mind when you look foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No!

Ah well. I'd say "pity"...

except that I don't mind when you look foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

Well, apparently your fanatical obsession has affected your sense of
humor.
Like I said earlier, being "dissed" by you, means very little to me.

I'll be waiting for another of your witty and biting comebacks. So,
don't let me down. Thinking one up, will do you good, as it will take
your mind off that obsession of yours.

Hey, have I told you lately, how much I like my helmet;-)

Bottom line, you should lighten up Frank. 100% of those surveyed, came
to that conclusion.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Jeff Starr said:

Quoted message said:

except that I don't mind when you look foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

Well, apparently your fanatical obsession has affected your sense of
humor.
Like I said earlier, being "dissed" by you, means very little to me.

I'll be waiting for another of your witty and biting comebacks. So,
don't let me down. Thinking one up, will do you good, as it will take
your mind off that obsession of yours.

Hey, have I told you lately, how much I like my helmet;-)

Bottom line, you should lighten up Frank. 100% of those surveyed, came
to that conclusion.

The "you look foolish" argument is one of the weakest debating
techniques on Usenet, used only when the poster has been utterly
defeated, and lacks the ability to make a coherent argument. When you
are "dissed" like this, you can be comfortable knowing that whatever it
is you were debating, you have won the debate.