Re: Better than bells

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5 feet in
the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically STOP YOUR 12-POUND
HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then, KEEP IT THERE just off the
ground a few more seconds as your body mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Flailor... Too rich.

In case you're wondering, Flailor cross-posted this to RBT. Only surprise
is no UKC.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5 feet in
the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically STOP YOUR 12-POUND
HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then, KEEP IT THERE just off the
ground a few more seconds as your body mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Yep the 'ol "your head wouldn't have hit anything if you weren't
wearing a helmet" routine. Every time "jtaylor" or one of the Limey
AHZs puts forth that argument, I just about fall off my chair! Surely
they don't actually believe that drivel, or do they?

Quoted message said:

Flailor... Too rich.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5 feet in
the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically STOP YOUR 12-POUND
HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then, KEEP IT THERE just off the
ground a few more seconds as your body mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Yep the 'ol "your head wouldn't have hit anything if you weren't
wearing a helmet" routine. Every time "jtaylor" or one of the Limey
AHZs puts forth that argument, I just about fall off my chair! Surely
they don't actually believe that drivel, or do they?

The thing is, I think he does. He is so obsessed with helmet use, that
reality doesn't come into it.

Ever wonder why he won't answer my questions about his riding
experiences, and if he has ever been in a crash? My guess is that he
has been in at least one, if not more cycling accidents, that prove
his world studies and statistics to be inaccurate. He has such a MHL
fear, that he won't admit that helmets do some good.
He's a twisted little weasel, who may have lost his ability to use
reasoning, logic, and common sense. Probably when he hit his
unhelmeted head.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

He asked you a few questions. Can you answer any of them?

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote (/in
part/):

{where's the rest of what I wrote?!?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote: {context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever
it was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

Quoted message said:

He asked you a few questions. Can you answer any of them?

You deleted my answer. (Shocking! LOL )

{8 empty sig lines trimmed}

Why do you rail against helmets while owning numerous models and
photographing them admiringly, comparing their ventilation characteristics
(not to mention wearing them about 70% of the time you ride)?

That's just ONE question.

Bill "one line sig, too" S.

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote (/in
part/):

{where's the rest of what I wrote?!?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
> wrote: {context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
>> have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
> of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever
> it was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

Quoted message said:

He asked you a few questions. Can you answer any of them?

You deleted my answer. (Shocking! LOL )

You didn't answer any of his questions.

Quoted message said:

Why do you rail against helmets while owning numerous models and
photographing them admiringly, comparing their ventilation characteristics
(not to mention wearing them about 70% of the time you ride)?

That's just ONE question.

I haven't railed against helmets.

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

Why do you rail against helmets while owning numerous models and
photographing them admiringly, comparing their ventilation
characteristics (not to mention wearing them about 70% of the time
you ride)?

You know, the more I think about your comments about helmets the more
I realize you're just plain stupid. Equating skepticism about the
efficacy of helmets, or even just questions about them with being
anti-helmet or railing against helmets. Dopey.

As I've said many times, we're all ignorant about some things. I'm
ignorant about many things. But I'm also aware of most of my
ignorance and try to deal with it -- either by learning or by at least
not arguing about things I don't know.

While the true dopes revel in their ignornance and argue about things
they don't understand. Like simple division. Or questions about
helmets. LOL.

{8 annoying sig lines snipped}

Gee, for a bright guy you sure have to answer posts TWICE a lot.

ROTFL

Bill Sornson said:

Why do you rail against helmets while owning numerous models and
photographing them admiringly, comparing their ventilation characteristics
(not to mention wearing them about 70% of the time you ride)?

You know, the more I think about your comments about helmets the more
I realize you're just plain stupid. Equating skepticism about the
efficacy of helmets, or even just questions about them with being
anti-helmet or railing against helmets. Dopey.

As I've said many times, we're all ignorant about some things. I'm
ignorant about many things. But I'm also aware of most of my
ignorance and try to deal with it -- either by learning or by at least
not arguing about things I don't know.

While the true dopes revel in their ignornance and argue about things
they don't understand. Like simple division. Or questions about
helmets. LOL.

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

He asked you a few questions. Can you answer any of them?

JT

Do insults count - the chances of those emannating from Sorni are much
greater than facts.

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

Why do you rail against helmets while owning numerous models and
photographing them admiringly, comparing their ventilation
characteristics (not to mention wearing them about 70% of the time
you ride)?

You know, the more I think about your comments about helmets the more
I realize you're just plain stupid. Equating skepticism about the
efficacy of helmets, or even just questions about them with being
anti-helmet or railing against helmets. Dopey.

As I've said many times, we're all ignorant about some things. I'm
ignorant about many things. But I'm also aware of most of my
ignorance and try to deal with it -- either by learning or by at least
not arguing about things I don't know.

While the true dopes revel in their ignornance and argue about things
they don't understand. Like simple division. Or questions about
helmets. LOL.

{8 annoying sig lines snipped}

Gee, for a bright guy you sure have to answer posts TWICE a lot.

Gee for a dopey guy you're pretty clever at avoiding answering simple
questions.

LOL.

JT

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

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5 feet in
the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically STOP YOUR 12-POUND
HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then, KEEP IT THERE just off the
ground a few more seconds as your body mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Would not an old fashioned "hair net" work just as well to prevent
scalp abrasions as a CPSC, ANSI or Snell approved foam hat?

I expect my fleece cap with Gore Windbloc [TM] liner would be fairly
effective in preventing sliding abrasion scalp injuries.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote: {context???}

Quoted message said:

> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever
it was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5
feet in the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically
STOP YOUR 12-POUND HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then,
KEEP IT THERE just off the ground a few more seconds as your body
mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Would not an old fashioned "hair net" work just as well to prevent
scalp abrasions as a CPSC, ANSI or Snell approved foam hat?

Possibly. However, if /my/ head bounces off and/or scrapes along a rough
road surface, then I'll take the hard-shell lid TYVM.

Quoted message said:

I expect my fleece cap with Gore Windbloc [TM] liner would be fairly
effective in preventing sliding abrasion scalp injuries.

Possibly so. I'd still prefer slightly more substantial protection.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:11:59 GMT, Jeff Starr <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

My guess is that he
has been in at least one, if not more cycling accidents, that prove
his world studies and statistics to be inaccurate.

Here we have, in a nutshell, a demonstration of the innumeracy that
allows some people to blather on about the supposed value of cycle
helmets. They are told about the peer-reviewed studies on the results
when millions of people suddenly take up wearing cycle helmets (no
reduction in injury rates) and point to a single incident and say that
that incident proves the studies "innaccurate".

It's probably no surprise that Jeff Starr joins Bill Sornson and Ozark
in this regard; both of whom have demonstrated difficulty with simple
arithmetic right here in r.b.t.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{context???}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.)

Quoted message said:

How do you know "for sure"? Was the scrape as deep as the thickness
of the helmet? If not, wouldn't his head missed entirely whatever it
was that "scraped" the surface of the helmet?

Can't argue with THAT "logic"!

LOL ROTFL LOL

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5 feet in
the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically STOP YOUR 12-POUND
HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then, KEEP IT THERE just off the
ground a few more seconds as your body mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Flailor... Too rich.

The above, BTW is at the very edge of testing requirements, in terms of
height and add speed, which is lower than most of 'us' ride.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5
feet in the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically
STOP YOUR 12-POUND HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then,
KEEP IT THERE just off the ground a few more seconds as your body
mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Quoted message said:

The above, BTW is at the very edge of testing requirements, in terms
of height and add speed, which is lower than most of 'us' ride.

Just to be clear, I wasn't describing a "drop the melon"-type scenario
(although I'd want to have a helmet on MY melon in that type of fall, too).
What happened to my friend -- as evidenced by the wide scrape marks on his
lid -- is much more typical (thank God): going down suddenly and having
/forward momentum/ cause one's 12-pound noggin to hit/slide along the
ground. "Road rash for the head" -- not fatal or even serious,
necessarily -- just painful and UN-necessary.

Wear what you want.

Sorno

[email hidden] wrote:

{NICE USER NAME LOL }

Quoted message said:

It's probably no surprise that Jeff Starr joins Bill Sornson and Ozark
in this regard; both of whom have demonstrated difficulty with simple
arithmetic right here in r.b.t.

As opposed to The Flailor, who just tells bald-faced lies (like, "Cue
Sorni/Ozark/Starr: "The helmet saved his life."😉

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Psst. Try falling sideways suddenly and unavoidably from 4-to-5
feet in the air while suspended and moving forward, and magically
STOP YOUR 12-POUND HEAD A HALF-INCH FROM THE PAVEMENT. And then,
KEEP IT THERE just off the ground a few more seconds as your body
mass settles. Good luck with that.)

Quoted message said:

The above, BTW is at the very edge of testing requirements, in terms
of height and add speed, which is lower than most of 'us' ride.

Just to be clear, I wasn't describing a "drop the melon"-type scenario
(although I'd want to have a helmet on MY melon in that type of fall, too).
What happened to my friend -- as evidenced by the wide scrape marks on his
lid -- is much more typical (thank God): going down suddenly and having
/forward momentum/ cause one's 12-pound noggin to hit/slide along the
ground. "Road rash for the head" -- not fatal or even serious,
necessarily -- just painful and UN-necessary.

Exactly right. I've had my head hit the pavement twice. The first,
bare-headed, resulted in a large gash on my head which required
stitches and left a scar the remains over 20 years later. The other,
helmeted, left no cuts, scrapes, etc., on my head, although other body
parts were pretty roughed up (more so than in the prior incident). No,
this is not scientific, it's merely personal experience. And that's
good enough to guide me in my personal choice.

Quoted message said:

Wear what you want.

Why do some people have such a hard time getting that? Is it the "each
helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion" BS?

Bill Sornson said:

Wear what you want.

In the state where you claim to live, over 10 million people cannot
ride a bicycle and "wear what they want". Have you attempted to do
anything about this, or are your words empty?