"burtthebike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
TerryJ said:
I thought the case had 'fallen' from a 6th floor onto concrete. Her chest was full of blood amongst other things.I did not stay with the program, so unfortunately missed his assertion that a cycle helmet would have helped. I look forward to a live demonstration with him as the subject. If her skull was in such a state I wonder what her brain must have looked like.
TerryJ
He never asserted that a cycle helmet would have helped in this case. That would be yet another case of anti-helmet knee jerk assumptions disease.
yet another? so post a few then. Or are you just another paranoid troll?
Anyone who is familiar with this ng is going to know that posting a 'helmet helped somone' post is going to be attacked by the 'no helmet compulsion' brigade.
"OG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way.
If you were to write or find one, and it had some merit, I'm sure they'd put it up.
"OG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"burtthebike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
TerryJ wrote: > I thought the case had 'fallen' from a 6th floor onto concrete. > Her chest was full of blood amongst other things.I did not stay with > the program, so unfortunately missed his assertion that a cycle helmet > would have helped. > I look forward to a live demonstration with him as the subject. > If her skull was in such a state I wonder what her brain must have > looked like. > > TerryJ
He never asserted that a cycle helmet would have helped in this case. That would be yet another case of anti-helmet knee jerk assumptions disease.
yet another? so post a few then. Or are you just another paranoid troll?
Anyone who is familiar with this ng is going to know that posting a 'helmet helped somone' post is going to be attacked by the 'no helmet compulsion' brigade.
As opposed to the anti-anti-compulsion knee jerk repetition of mythical assumptions?
So post a few of them. The challenge, like with helmets themselves, for you to prove your assertions. If you can't you're just another gullible helmet troll.
"OG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoting _ <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
I do wish that the pro-helmet whackos^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H proponents would stay flounced once flounced.
Indeed, he's flounced out of _this single thread_ twice.
Not surprising, this is not really a place that tolerates different viewpoints.
Incorrect. Lots of different viewpoints are tolerated here, but when someone makes unjustified and unjustifiable claims, no-one should be surprised when they are criticised. Or are you saying that people who post verifiable facts are intolerant of people who post speculation and guesswork? In that case, yes.
"OG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false premise.
Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way.
Dorothy Robinson got a lot of criticism, mainly in the BMA magazine, from the usual suspects, TRT, Sheik etc. Worth reading if only to see the incredible convulutions undertaken by them to attempt to prove their point.
There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false premise.
Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way.
Could that be because no-one has/can find a reason to attach a critical commentary? Why not you?
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
OG said:
Quoted message said:
There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false premise.
Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way.
Could that be because no-one has/can find a reason to attach a critical commentary?
Really? do you think that all anti-helmet papers are beyond criticism?
Quoted message said:
Why not you?
Because I'm not that interested and I very much doubt that 'they' would put it up.
I'm still open to a link to a critical commentary on cyclehelmets.org for an anti-helmet paper.
Because I'm not that interested and I very much doubt that 'they' would put it up.
You're evidently interested enough to keep returning to the subject, albeit without really saying any more than that you think the coverage here is biased. If you won't explicitly state your own position, let alone any evidence to support your position, is it any wonder if you think your point of view appears under-represented?
Quoted message said:
I'm still open to a link to a critical commentary on cyclehelmets.org for an anti-helmet paper.
There's a great deal of cyclehelmets.org which I haven't read: what anti-helmet papers do you mean, and what criticisms do you think have not been made?
-- Mark, UK "All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it."
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
OG said:
> There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in > research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift > through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with > a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to > do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't > bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false > premise. Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way.
Could that be because no-one has/can find a reason to attach a critical commentary?
Really?
I don't know, which is why it was a question! do you think that all anti-helmet papers are beyond criticism? I don't think anything is beyond criticism , which is why I'm surprised that there isn't any
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why not you?
Because I'm not that interested
Not interested enough to make a criticism of the papers, but interested enough to make a criticism of the fact that there is no criticism. An odd stance to take.
and I very much doubt that 'they' would put
Quoted message said:
it up.
you have of course no idea if they would or not.
Quoted message said:
I'm still open to a link to a critical commentary on cyclehelmets.org for an anti-helmet paper.
Your'e open to it as long as someone else does the work?
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
OG said:
"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
OG wrote: >> There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in >> research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift >> through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done >> with >> a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced >> to >> do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you >> haven't >> bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false >> premise. > Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a > critical commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet > papers have such commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have > evidence of at least one critical commentary the other way. Could that be because no-one has/can find a reason to attach a critical commentary?
Really?
I don't know, which is why it was a question! do you think that all anti-helmet papers are beyond criticism? I don't think anything is beyond criticism , which is why I'm surprised that there isn't any
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why not you?
Because I'm not that interested
Not interested enough to make a criticism of the papers, but interested enough to make a criticism of the fact that there is no criticism. An odd stance to take.
and I very much doubt that 'they' would put
Quoted message said:
it up.
you have of course no idea if they would or not.
Quoted message said:
I'm still open to a link to a critical commentary on cyclehelmets.org for an anti-helmet paper.
Your'e open to it as long as someone else does the work?
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
You'll find a similar situation in Nature and New Scientist with Intelligent Design. And there is a good reason for it.
-- Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George Bernard Shaw
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
You'll find a similar situation in Nature and New Scientist with Intelligent Design. And there is a good reason for it.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
You'll find a similar situation in Nature and New Scientist with Intelligent Design. And there is a good reason for it.
And the reason is?
It's a little bit difficult to have an objective critisism of an argument that consists of "'Cos I Said so!" without any other proof?
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
You'll find a similar situation in Nature and New Scientist with Intelligent Design. And there is a good reason for it.
In article <[email hidden]>, nigel_randell@_ 1.web says...
Quoted message said:
Tony Raven said:
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I'm not the one claiming that c*.org is objective in its selection of information; all I am doing is pointing out that (so far as I have seen) it makes critical commentary on one side of the argument only.
You'll find a similar situation in Nature and New Scientist with Intelligent Design. And there is a good reason for it.
And the reason is?
If you need to ask......
-- Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George Bernard Shaw
