Better than bells

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 05 Sep 2006 10:03:56
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Better than bells

The human voice: the ultimate alert device.

The other night I was heading home at dusk when I came upon a string of
8-10 Canada geese wandering across the road. There was almost no
traffic, and the geese were blocking three of five lanes, and heading
for my lane.

What to do? Hitting one would trump most squirrel stories, but I really
didn't want to do that. I've seen the geese in this area ignore car
horns, squealing tires, people shouting, etc.

After a few moments thought, I let out my best imitation dog howl. All
the geese looked at me. The lead goose eyed me suspiciously, as though
I didn't LOOK like a free-running dog, but decided to turn around
anyway. It slowly waddled back until it almost walked into goose #2,
who decided to turn around then, and the ripple effect was back to the
third and fourth geese before I passed them.

It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that bike?"

Pat

Date: 08 Sep 2006 17:41:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <1157711546.925503.292560@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"gardenshears" <karenshears@hotmail.com > writes:

> i agree it is so much easier to shout GET OUT THE WAY

I guess such imperatives are okay with geese; for ducks
(for whom I have more respect) I'd prefix that phrase
with a "please". Naw. I'd just let them do their duck thing.
At least ducks keep moving in an obvious, concerted effort to
/cross/ the road as pedestrians. Geese just hang around and
stake a claim on whatever spot they occupy, road be damned.
So do bighorn sheep.

> than have to take
> your hand off the bike and ring the bell.

I don't have to move my hand at all to ring my bell, thanks
to its placement.

> If you do ring the bell when
> people are in the way they only turn round to look at where the noise
> is coming fron and why you have rung your bell my which time you have
> hit them.

In my experience of convergences of cyclists' and pedestrians' lines
of travel, the pedestrians usually have the right-of-way. I'd feel
pretty rude for yelling "Get outa the way!" at 'em. I do occasionally
encounter jaywalkers, people who think a bike lane is a sidewalk, and
red-light-running pedestrians. In those situations I figure a "Be
careful!" is a more appropriate imperative than "Get outa the way!"
I've never run into a person with my bike, and I intend to never
do so. I'll do what I must to maintain that. But that responsibility
is on /my/ end. Yelling "Get out of the way!" at people doesn't
absolve me of that responsibility.

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 03:32:26
From: gardenshears
Subject: Re: Better than bells

i agree it is so much easier to shout GET OUT THE WAY than have to take
your hand off the bike and ring the bell. If you do ring the bell when
people are in the way they only turn round to look at where the noise
is coming fron and why you have rung your bell my which time you have
hit them.
Pat Lamb wrote:
> The human voice: the ultimate alert device.
>
> The other night I was heading home at dusk when I came upon a string of
> 8-10 Canada geese wandering across the road. There was almost no
> traffic, and the geese were blocking three of five lanes, and heading
> for my lane.
>
> What to do? Hitting one would trump most squirrel stories, but I really
> didn't want to do that. I've seen the geese in this area ignore car
> horns, squealing tires, people shouting, etc.
>
> After a few moments thought, I let out my best imitation dog howl. All
> the geese looked at me. The lead goose eyed me suspiciously, as though
> I didn't LOOK like a free-running dog, but decided to turn around
> anyway. It slowly waddled back until it almost walked into goose #2,
> who decided to turn around then, and the ripple effect was back to the
> third and fourth geese before I passed them.
>
> It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
> week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that bike?"
>
> Pat

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:25:33
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Paul Hobson wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <edo5eu$2cs$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> > Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Paul Hobson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
> >>>> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
> >>>> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
> >>>> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
> >>>> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
> >>>> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
> >>>> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
> >>>> notions of safety and responsibility.
> >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
> >>> Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
> >>> have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!
> >> I agree 100%. It really bothers me that it's that way (misinformation
> >> about anything, really). But I feel I've chosen the best course of
> >> action in the meantime. Eh?
> >
> > You say it may prevent a scrape, but so will a cloth cap.
> > And the helmet makes you a bigger target so the ground
> > could grab your helmet in a situation where not wearing a
> > helmet would leave your head clear of the ground. At the
> > level of risk we are considering you ought not disregard
> > this argument. Ever scraped your head in a bicycle crash?
> >
>
> Never crashed a bicycle since my bmx days of long past. But I friend of
> mine did and would have scraped the *top* of her head quite badly.
> Again, I'll post the link: http://tinyurl.com/ogkvx
>
> Those scratches aren't there b/c the helmet made her head a larger
> target. Cloth caps wouldn't do crap there. Am I wrong?
>

IMO, no. It's just one of the silly AHZ arguments.

> Something tells me that with the momentum transfered while wrecking at
> 15 - 20 mph, the 1 - 1.5 inches of radius that the helmet adds to my
> head isn't going to matter much in terms of whether or not my head hits
> the ground. Am I wrong there too?
>

IMO, no.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:47:13
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> > > ...
> > > How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> > > think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> > > they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> > > cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> > > enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?...
> >
> > Make the fines high enough, and ticketing cyclists not wearing foam
> > hats will become a "revenue stream" for said jurisdiction.
> >
>
> Oh yeah, a much larger revenue stream than just setting up speed traps;
> after all, there are so many more unhelmeted cyclists than speeding
> motorists, right, Tom?
>
> Don't let the cheddar fill the void between your ears.

In Wisconsin, cyclists will soon be required to wear these:
<http://www.villagehatshop.com/cheesehead_hat.html >.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:58:22
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> In Wisconsin, cyclists will soon be required to wear these:
> <http://www.villagehatshop.com/cheesehead_hat.html>.

Here's to a MCHL!

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:45:24
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Paul Hobson wrote:

> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
> notions of safety and responsibility.

Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!

The propagandists have gone a long way toward achieving this. Already,
it's common for newspaper articles to state "he was not wearing a
helmet" whenever that applies to a seriously injured cyclist. Of
course, it's not done for motorists nor for pedestrians, although the
danger level is very similar (and very low) for all three classes. And
interestingly, I've known of cases where cyclists _were_ wearing
helmets, and their presence was omitted from the news article. Can't
let people know when they don't work!

The propaganda continues to flow. It's causing yet another erosion of
cyclists' rights. But the true believers can't see that!

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:16:02
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 20:45:24 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
>> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
>> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
>> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
>> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
>> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
>> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
>> notions of safety and responsibility.
>
>Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
>Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
>have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!
>

Exactly the opinion that the pronouncements of Sorni, Ozark, Starr,
and the like have produced.

>The propagandists have gone a long way toward achieving this. Already,
>it's common for newspaper articles to state "he was not wearing a
>helmet" whenever that applies to a seriously injured cyclist. Of
>course, it's not done for motorists nor for pedestrians, although the
>danger level is very similar (and very low) for all three classes. And
>interestingly, I've known of cases where cyclists _were_ wearing
>helmets, and their presence was omitted from the news article. Can't
>let people know when they don't work!
>
>The propaganda continues to flow. It's causing yet another erosion of
>cyclists' rights. But the true believers can't see that!
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:01:27
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 20:45:24 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul Hobson wrote:
>>
>>> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
>>> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
>>> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our
>>> friends' 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand
>>> before a court and say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and
>>> using my lights on my way to school when this irresponsible
>>> motorist hit me." Judges probably don't care about our helmet
>>> wars. But I care about their preconceived notions of safety and
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
>> Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
>> have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!

> Exactly the opinion that the pronouncements of Sorni, Ozark, Starr,
> and the like have produced.

LOL You're such an expert on California's (Kiddie) MHL, when was it passed?
(Clue: I started mountain biking in 1996. Not sure when I discovered
Usenet, but I don't recall participating in any helmet flame war threads
before about 6 months ago. Yet I'm responsible in part for some mythical
judge's mythical "preconceived notions"? Too much...)

BTW, I'm still waiting for that quote of me (or the others you lied about)
saying that falls would be fatal if not for lids. Tick tick tick... (I'll
settle for a retraction. Yeah. right.)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:09:20
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> LOL You're such an expert on California's (Kiddie) MHL, when was it passed?
> (Clue: I started mountain biking in 1996. Not sure when I discovered
> Usenet, but I don't recall participating in any helmet flame war threads
> before about 6 months ago. Yet I'm responsible in part for some mythical
> judge's mythical "preconceived notions"? Too much...)
>
> BTW, I'm still waiting for that quote of me (or the others you lied about)
> saying that falls would be fatal if not for lids. Tick tick tick... (I'll
> settle for a retraction. Yeah. right.)
>
>
Billy,
I live in California and the law is real for kids under 15 (17?).
The CHP has a program to give out free helmets and the kids get a
lecture on how their mommies will have to pay $50 if they don't wear
their helmet. Naturally, every kid in the neighborhood has lost the
helmet within a week and the police never stop them anyway. I had my
granddaughter out with her helmet on and a bunch of her friends tagged
along without helmets. We passed a few county sheriffs and one just
waved and drove on. Law, yes, enforcement, no.
Bill Baka

Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:49:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Baka wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> LOL You're such an expert on California's (Kiddie) MHL, when was it
>> passed? (Clue: I started mountain biking in 1996. Not sure when I
>> discovered Usenet, but I don't recall participating in any helmet
>> flame war threads before about 6 months ago. Yet I'm responsible in
>> part for some mythical judge's mythical "preconceived notions"? Too
>> much...) BTW, I'm still waiting for that quote of me (or the others you
>> lied
>> about) saying that falls would be fatal if not for lids. Tick tick
>> tick... (I'll settle for a retraction. Yeah. right.)
>>
>>
> Billy,
> I live in California and the law is real for kids under 15 (17?).
> The CHP has a program to give out free helmets and the kids get a
> lecture on how their mommies will have to pay $50 if they don't wear
> their helmet. Naturally, every kid in the neighborhood has lost the
> helmet within a week and the police never stop them anyway. I had my
> granddaughter out with her helmet on and a bunch of her friends tagged
> along without helmets. We passed a few county sheriffs and one just
> waved and drove on. Law, yes, enforcement, no.
> Bill Baka

What you snipped, Billy II, was flailor's claim that judges have
"preconceived notions" about helmets due to stuff I and a few others say on
Usenet. (I'll get the quote in a sec.) The man (???) is friggin'
/obsessed/ with me, to the point of bizarre low humor. OK, here's what he
wrote (go look for full content):

"Exactly the opinion that the pronouncements of Sorni, Ozark, Starr, and the
like have produced."

It's not only false (which he must know), it's completely absurd (to which I
think he must be blinded).

Sad and funny at the same time... BS

Date: 07 Sep 2006 22:58:37
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Billy,
>> I live in California and the law is real for kids under 15 (17?).
>> The CHP has a program to give out free helmets and the kids get a
>> lecture on how their mommies will have to pay $50 if they don't wear
>> their helmet. Naturally, every kid in the neighborhood has lost the
>> helmet within a week and the police never stop them anyway. I had my
>> granddaughter out with her helmet on and a bunch of her friends tagged
>> along without helmets. We passed a few county sheriffs and one just
>> waved and drove on. Law, yes, enforcement, no.
>> Bill Baka
>
> What you snipped, Billy II, was flailor's claim that judges have
> "preconceived notions" about helmets due to stuff I and a few others say on
> Usenet. (I'll get the quote in a sec.) The man (???) is friggin'
> /obsessed/ with me, to the point of bizarre low humor.

You mean like Brickston has made me his favorite target.

OK, here's what he
> wrote (go look for full content):
>
> "Exactly the opinion that the pronouncements of Sorni, Ozark, Starr, and the
> like have produced."
>
> It's not only false (which he must know), it's completely absurd (to which I
> think he must be blinded).
>
> Sad and funny at the same time... BS
>
>
You know how you read people's comment just to see how uninformed they
are? It applies on this group too.
Bill Baka

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:59:26
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
>> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
>> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
>> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
>> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
>> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
>> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
>> notions of safety and responsibility.

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
> Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
> have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!

I agree 100%. It really bothers me that it's that way (misinformation
about anything, really). But I feel I've chosen the best course of
action in the meantime. Eh?
\\paul

Date: 07 Sep 2006 04:53:27
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <edo5eu$2cs$1@news-int.gatech.edu >,
Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu > wrote:

> > Paul Hobson wrote:
> >
> >> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
> >> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
> >> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
> >> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
> >> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
> >> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
> >> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
> >> notions of safety and responsibility.
>
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
> > Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
> > have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!
>
> I agree 100%. It really bothers me that it's that way (misinformation
> about anything, really). But I feel I've chosen the best course of
> action in the meantime. Eh?

You say it may prevent a scrape, but so will a cloth cap.
And the helmet makes you a bigger target so the ground
could grab your helmet in a situation where not wearing a
helmet would leave your head clear of the ground. At the
level of risk we are considering you ought not disregard
this argument. Ever scraped your head in a bicycle crash?

--
Michael Press

Date: 07 Sep 2006 01:41:35
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <edo5eu$2cs$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Paul Hobson wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
>>>> I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
>>>> 1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
>>>> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
>>>> say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
>>>> to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
>>>> don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
>>>> notions of safety and responsibility.
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Of course, this situation bothers me due to the other possibility:
>>> Judges and juries _not_ giving cyclists their just due, because they
>>> have become convinced that cyclists _must_ have helmets to be safe!
>> I agree 100%. It really bothers me that it's that way (misinformation
>> about anything, really). But I feel I've chosen the best course of
>> action in the meantime. Eh?
>
> You say it may prevent a scrape, but so will a cloth cap.
> And the helmet makes you a bigger target so the ground
> could grab your helmet in a situation where not wearing a
> helmet would leave your head clear of the ground. At the
> level of risk we are considering you ought not disregard
> this argument. Ever scraped your head in a bicycle crash?
>

Never crashed a bicycle since my bmx days of long past. But I friend of
mine did and would have scraped the *top* of her head quite badly.
Again, I'll post the link: http://tinyurl.com/ogkvx

Those scratches aren't there b/c the helmet made her head a larger
target. Cloth caps wouldn't do crap there. Am I wrong?

Something tells me that with the momentum transfered while wrecking at
15 - 20 mph, the 1 - 1.5 inches of radius that the helmet adds to my
head isn't going to matter much in terms of whether or not my head hits
the ground. Am I wrong there too?

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:00:00
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:41:35 -0400, Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu >
wrote:

>
>Something tells me that with the momentum transfered while wrecking at
>15 - 20 mph, the 1 - 1.5 inches of radius that the helmet adds to my
>head isn't going to matter much in terms of whether or not my head hits
>the ground. Am I wrong there too?

In the larger picture, most probably.

Rotational injuries to the spine require roughly an order of magnitude
LESS energy that straight-on impacts, and are often more serious in
their effect on health; and helmets not only make the target bigger,
but frequently are constructed so thet they are more likely to catch
on the impacted surface, compared to a bare head.

And of course, there are the numerous peer-reviewed population level
studies which show no net health benefit from increased cycle helmet
wearing. These are often decried by innumerate posters with
statements such as "a single instance makes those studies innacurate"
and "my personal opinion disagrees with the studies" and "my friend
fell off his bike and the helmet saved his life" - but such
statements, while no doubt impressive to those who use them, do
nothing to change the real world results of cycle helmet useage.

There is also element of the larger picture which has as its concern
the impact of cycle helmet wearing and legislation on the popularity
of cycling. If it is seen as an activity that is "dangerous" - so
dangerous that "protective" equipment is not only reccomended, but
required by law, then people are less disposed to partake. This
reduced participation is a net health costs, despite the facts - hard
real-world facts - that show that cycling is about as dangerous as
walking. You wil find that the pro-helmet zealots will do anything
they can to avoind the question:

"Do you also wear a helmet while walking? If not, why not?"

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:23:08
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:41:35 -0400, Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Something tells me that with the momentum transfered while wrecking at
>> 15 - 20 mph, the 1 - 1.5 inches of radius that the helmet adds to my
>> head isn't going to matter much in terms of whether or not my head hits
>> the ground. Am I wrong there too?
>
> In the larger picture, most probably.

Now we're talking opinions

> Rotational injuries to the spine require roughly an order of magnitude
> LESS energy that straight-on impacts, and are often more serious in
> their effect on health; and helmets not only make the target bigger,
> but frequently are constructed so thet they are more likely to catch
> on the impacted surface, compared to a bare head.
>
> And of course, there are the numerous peer-reviewed population level
> studies which show no net health benefit from increased cycle helmet
> wearing. These are often decried by innumerate posters with
> statements such as "a single instance makes those studies innacurate"
> and "my personal opinion disagrees with the studies" and "my friend
> fell off his bike and the helmet saved his life" - but such
> statements, while no doubt impressive to those who use them, do
> nothing to change the real world results of cycle helmet useage.
>
> There is also element of the larger picture which has as its concern
> the impact of cycle helmet wearing and legislation on the popularity
> of cycling. If it is seen as an activity that is "dangerous" - so
> dangerous that "protective" equipment is not only reccomended, but
> required by law, then people are less disposed to partake. This
> reduced participation is a net health costs, despite the facts - hard
> real-world facts - that show that cycling is about as dangerous as
> walking. You wil find that the pro-helmet zealots will do anything
> they can to avoind the question:
>
> "Do you also wear a helmet while walking? If not, why not?"

Preaching to the choir. Did you read my main reason for wearing a lid
you snipped it:
2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
notions of safety and responsibility.

I'm done here.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:02:55
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Paul Hobson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:41:35 -0400, Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Something tells me that with the momentum transfered while wrecking
>>> at 15 - 20 mph, the 1 - 1.5 inches of radius that the helmet adds
>>> to my head isn't going to matter much in terms of whether or not my
>>> head hits the ground. Am I wrong there too?
>>
>> In the larger picture, most probably.
>
> Now we're talking opinions

Duh. (That's not directed at /you/.)
>
>> Rotational injuries to the spine require roughly an order of
>> magnitude LESS energy that straight-on impacts, and are often more
>> serious in their effect on health; and helmets not only make the
>> target bigger, but frequently are constructed so thet they are more
>> likely to catch on the impacted surface, compared to a bare head.
>>
>> And of course, there are the numerous peer-reviewed population level
>> studies which show no net health benefit from increased cycle helmet
>> wearing. These are often decried by innumerate posters with
>> statements such as "a single instance makes those studies innacurate"
>> and "my personal opinion disagrees with the studies" and "my friend
>> fell off his bike and the helmet saved his life" - but such
>> statements, while no doubt impressive to those who use them, do
>> nothing to change the real world results of cycle helmet useage.
>>
>> There is also element of the larger picture which has as its concern
>> the impact of cycle helmet wearing and legislation on the popularity
>> of cycling. If it is seen as an activity that is "dangerous" - so
>> dangerous that "protective" equipment is not only reccomended, but
>> required by law, then people are less disposed to partake. This
>> reduced participation is a net health costs, despite the facts - hard
>> real-world facts - that show that cycling is about as dangerous as
>> walking. You wil find that the pro-helmet zealots will do anything
>> they can to avoind the question:
>>
>> "Do you also wear a helmet while walking? If not, why not?"
>
> Preaching to the choir. Did you read my main reason for wearing a lid
> you snipped it:

Now THERE's a shock! LOL

> 2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court
> and say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on
> my way to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges
> probably don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their
> preconceived notions of safety and responsibility.
>
>
> I'm done here.

You are wiser than I, Master. I bow.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:01:22
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> > ...
> > How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> > think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> > they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> > cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> > enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?...
>
> Make the fines high enough, and ticketing cyclists not wearing foam
> hats will become a "revenue stream" for said jurisdiction.
>

Oh yeah, a much larger revenue stream than just setting up speed traps;
after all, there are so many more unhelmeted cyclists than speeding
motorists, right, Tom?

Don't let the cheddar fill the void between your ears.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:30:14
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> ...
> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?...

Make the fines high enough, and ticketing cyclists not wearing foam
hats will become a "revenue stream" for said jurisdiction.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:23:15
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> > {context???}
> >
> > >> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> > >> have lost some scalp for sure.)
> >
> > > 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.

If I was that far from the ground, I would want a parachute. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Date: 06 Sep 2006 12:55:11
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

amakyonin wrote:
> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> > How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> > think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> > they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> > cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> > enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
>
> The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
> to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
> decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
> taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
> a left turn.
>

That's a possible scenario, but IMO, an unlikely one. IME, if "an
ignorant officer" thinks a cyclist is violating a traffic law (whether
they are or not is beside the point), they will stop and cite the
cyclist for that violation, or at least for a lecture. IOW, if the
officer believes he is "right", why would he need a pretext to stop the
cyclist?

And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

> I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults

We agree here.

> because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

IMO, that's a leap.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:40:58
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 12:55:11 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>> I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
>
>We agree here.
>

Does this mean that you ARE in favour of an MHL for some people, but
not for others?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:00:46
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 12:55:11 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
>hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
>people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.

Try it. Next time you are in a place with an MHL ride by cops without
a helmet.

JT

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 12:18:50
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
a left turn.

I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 17:59:54
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>
>obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
>> think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
>> they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
>> cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
>> enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
>
>The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
>to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
>decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
>taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
>a left turn.
>
>I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
>because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.

Well said.

It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
big deal.

Also in response to Ozark, my best friend was stopped by a cop for
riding w/o a helmet within the last two months. Police enforce all
sorts of things that probably shouldn't be priorities.

JT

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:33:55
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 09:42:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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".
> >
> >Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:
> >
> >A) The California law only applies to children
>
> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
> while cycling than any other state in the US.
>
> >
> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
>
> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.

How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

> What
> have you done about MHL's? Anything?

When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
will oppose it. In the meantime, I leave the tilting at windmills to
you, Don Flailote.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:39:19
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>> >A) The California law only applies to children

10 million of them. So far.

>>
>> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
>> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
>> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
>> while cycling than any other state in the US.
>>
>> >
>> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
>> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
>>
>> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
>> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
>
>How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
>think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
>they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
>cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
>enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
>
>
>> What
>> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
>
>When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
>will oppose it.

So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:49:40
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 09:42:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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".
>>> Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:
>>>
>>> A) The California law only applies to children
>> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
>> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
>> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
>> while cycling than any other state in the US.
>>
>>> B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
>>> cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
>> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
>> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
>
> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?

So what are they going to do to me, take away my bicycle license? If I'm
riding a junker they can impound it and I'll just get another. If they
try to fine me I won't pay it, and will sit in jail for a few days, at
their expense and a few of my vacation days, or do a few weekends. I'll
bet they wouldn't keep giving me tickets if they knew I was going to
COST THEM money!!!!
Unfortunately I could not take that approach with the motorcycle helmet
laws since they could take my motorcycle license or apply points to my
car license. That took all the fun out of motorcycle riding for me.
Bill Baka
>
>
>> What
>> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
>
> When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
> will oppose it. In the meantime, I leave the tilting at windmills to
> you, Don Flailote.
>

Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:42:05
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >
> >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".

Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:

A) The California law only applies to children

B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:47:23
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:29:24 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com>
> wrote:
> [about my asking what "whoosh" from Ozark means]
>
> > If you really don't get it, you
> > really are not very bright,
> > and if you do, then you are just
> > being an asshole.
>
> I'm pretty st about some stuff -- stuff I'm familiar with and also
> stuff that involved critical thinking. I'm not bright about other
> stuff and this is one of those things. What does it mean here?
>
> >either way, it is quite
> > pathetic.
>
> Willful ignorance of important stuff is pathetic, but being honest
> about my ignorance by asking a question is something I think is
> admirable. It's easy for me to be up-front about not know what the
> meaning is because I suspect it's something stupid or obnoxious, and
> hearing the user of the term explain that would give me pleasure. In
> fact, Ozarks avoidance of explaining it makes me think it's likely
> he's embarrassed by it.
>
> But in any case I'm really not sure what is means and want to know the
> meaning.
>

You really *are* the prize jackass. LOL!!!!

Google, grasshopper, Google.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:06:51
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 09:42:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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".
>
>Facts omitted by "jtaylor", who loves to prattle on about facts:
>
>A) The California law only applies to children

So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
while cycling than any other state in the US.

>
>B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
>cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.

So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat. What
have you done about MHL's? Anything?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 08:11:08
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> (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.)
>
> > 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 ks 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.

> 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?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 07:03:29
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Better than bells

raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> yeah, well, I was a courier at the time so it's do that or don't make
> enough to put food on the table (plus get blacklisted by dispatch), no
> choice in that kind of occupation. now, all my rides are out in the
> boonies, no bell, no problemo

Leaving aside whether or not your then-occupation forced you to ride in
the door zone, the fact remains that no one has ever been hurt merely
because they possessed or used a bell. The same cannot be said about
riding in the door zone. Your original assertion is not unlike the
driver who claims brakes are dangerous after crashing because, even
though they worked properly, his brakes failed to stop him in time to
avoid the car in front of him in bumper to bumper traffic. Brakes
didn't cause his crash. Following too closely and his own inattention
did.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:17:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> {context???}
>
> >> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> >> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>
> > 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.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:26:08
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
> >bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
> >license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
> >did he just get a little lecture?
>
> The latter two I think.
>

Just a lecture? Or a lecture and a ticket?

> You think that's not important? Not a big deal?

It's a local ordinance, right? Just like curfews, anti-loitering
ordinances, no skateboarding ordinances, etc., etc. i.e., Small time
local BS. If you get worked up about one, why not the others? Of
course, then you'd spend your life obsessed with small time local BS.

> Lame.
>

That would be lame, yes.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:53:23
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 18:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> >Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
>> >bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
>> >license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
>> >did he just get a little lecture?
>>
>> The latter two I think.
>>
>
>Just a lecture? Or a lecture and a ticket?

Both I think.

>> You think that's not important? Not a big deal?
>
>It's a local ordinance, right? Just like curfews, anti-loitering
>ordinances, no skateboarding ordinances, etc., etc. i.e., Small time
>local BS. If you get worked up about one, why not the others? Of
>course, then you'd spend your life obsessed with small time local BS.

I don;t know about obsessed, but we shoudl care about that stuff and
try to stop it when wrong.

But if you want to let your ego in not liking helmet skeptics or your
laziness mean you'll brush off something that a liberal person should
at least care about, go ahead.

JT

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:

>> (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.)

> 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 ks 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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:24:04
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:36:58
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Paul Hobson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>> (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.)
>>
>>> 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 ks 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.
>
> Like this?
> http://tinyurl.com/ogkvx (picture of a friends helmet after being a
> victim of a hit & run with an SUV)
> \\paul

Similar ks, but my friend's scrapes were on the side of his helmet.
Looks like you pal did a skidding head stand! Yikes.

(A guy just posted to our local mtb yahoo group that he was hit & run on
Monday or Tuesday morning. Helmet "split" or "split in two" is how he
described the gear (can't recall which); I asked him to post a pic but not
sure he's techie enough to do it.)

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:27:38
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>What happened to my friend -- as evidenced by
>>> the wide scrape ks 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.

> Paul Hobson wrote:
>> Like this?
>> http://tinyurl.com/ogkvx (picture of a friends helmet after being a
>> victim of a hit & run with an SUV)
>> \\paul

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Similar ks, but my friend's scrapes were on the side of his helmet.
> Looks like you pal did a skidding head stand! Yikes.

Yeah. She still is having serious back/neck problems b/c of it. I'll
admit that I'm skeptical of just how much a helmet can do. But b/c of
her crash, I wear mine during my new commute (7 miles each way) for what
I feel are two perfectly good reasons:
1) It will at least protect my scalp in scenarios such as our friends'
2) If, knock on wood, I do ever get hit, I can stand before a court and
say, "Your Honor, I was wearing my helmet and using my lights on my way
to school when this irresponsible motorist hit me." Judges probably
don't care about our helmet wars. But I care about their preconceived
notions of safety and responsibility.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:43:46
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>
>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?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:22:19
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:32:31 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On 6 Sep 2006 20:41:39 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >>> > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> >>> > > On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
> >>> >
> >>> > At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
> >>> > truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
> >>>
> >>> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy) !!
> >
> >WTF does "whoosh" mean? You keep posting it and it's not clear what
> >it means. Is it some in-joke or are you actually trying to respond to
> >the previous poster?
> >
> >JT
> >
> Let me say it, this time. WHOOSH!!!
>
> If you really don't get it, you really are not very bright, and if you
> do, then you are just being an asshole. either way, it is quite
> pathetic.
>
>

As Bill says, it's hard to tell with J F Trollinsum. Is he thick as
brick or just a dick?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:57:07
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 18:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>
> >> >Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
> >> >bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
> >> >license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
> >> >did he just get a little lecture?
> >>
> >> The latter two I think.
> >>
> >
> >Just a lecture? Or a lecture and a ticket?
>
> Both I think.
>
> >> You think that's not important? Not a big deal?
> >
> >It's a local ordinance, right? Just like curfews, anti-loitering
> >ordinances, no skateboarding ordinances, etc., etc. i.e., Small time
> >local BS. If you get worked up about one, why not the others? Of
> >course, then you'd spend your life obsessed with small time local BS.
>
> I don;t know about obsessed, but we shoudl care about that stuff and
> try to stop it when wrong.
>

Why stop at local helmet ordinances? What about curfews,
anti-loitering, anti-skateboarding, etc., etc.? Are you merely
selectively liberal, or do you bleed for them all?

> But if you want to let your ego in not liking helmet skeptics or your
> laziness mean you'll brush off something that a liberal person should
> at least care about, go ahead.
>
>

I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
MHL with prison terms.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:31:03
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 19:57:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 18:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
>> >> >bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
>> >> >license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
>> >> >did he just get a little lecture?
>> >>
>> >> The latter two I think.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Just a lecture? Or a lecture and a ticket?
>>
>> Both I think.
>>
>> >> You think that's not important? Not a big deal?
>> >
>> >It's a local ordinance, right? Just like curfews, anti-loitering
>> >ordinances, no skateboarding ordinances, etc., etc. i.e., Small time
>> >local BS. If you get worked up about one, why not the others? Of
>> >course, then you'd spend your life obsessed with small time local BS.
>>
>> I don;t know about obsessed, but we shoudl care about that stuff and
>> try to stop it when wrong.
>>
>
>Why stop at local helmet ordinances? What about curfews,
>anti-loitering, anti-skateboarding, etc., etc.? Are you merely
>selectively liberal, or do you bleed for them all?

I care about all those things and work harder on the ones that affect
me. You claim to care about cycling but don't do jack to actually
back that up.

>I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
>MHL with prison terms.

Dick. I still am curious what you look like. Could you please put a
photo of yourself online -- perhaps at your "service" site.

JT

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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:28:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?

Oh, the humanity! ROTFL

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:59:41
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Claire Petersky wrote:
> I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.

It was a hoot to read the broad range of clamor you use to interact
with traffic. When at speed, my vocabulary is usually restricted to the
single exclamation, "Stupid!" This is usually in response to someone
passing me too closely, passing me on a hill, passing me in a no
passing zone, and in all cases, passing me too close. It is also used
when mountain biking to refer to myself when I do, well, something
stupid. It is usually shortly after I hit the dirt, rocks, shrubs,
trees, etc.

My favorite exclamation thus far was to a man who cut me off. He pulled
out of a parking lot to cut in line in the que to the stop sign. His
window was down, so I had no need to yell. I said "Please be more
careful. That was dangerous, friend." He offered apologies while
waiting his turn at the stop sign.

Most of the drivers around here have their windows up, their radios
blaring, or both. Most vocalizations would be for my own benefit and
wouldn't be effective. I have found, as did another poster here, that a
pointing finger is quite effective. It is usually moreso when shaken up
and down as when a parent is chastising a child.

-Buck

Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:43:49
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> Nothing throws a monkey wrench into a delivery
> like hitting a door. Don't ride in the door zone,
> rookies. At least, not with any speed.

I reckon you never earned any money with your bike, and you won't in a
large city with traffic congestion, not that I'm recomending it or
saying it's safe; it's just the way things got done. And like I said,
going through stopped traffic

Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:56:18
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> Nothing throws a monkey wrench into a delivery
>> like hitting a door. Don't ride in the door zone,
>> rookies. At least, not with any speed.

raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
> I reckon you never earned any money with your bike, and you won't in a
> large city with traffic congestion, not that I'm recomending it or
> saying it's safe; it's just the way things got done. And like I said,
> going through stopped traffic

You're new, huh? :)
\\paul

Date: 06 Sep 2006 03:09:40
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Pat Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4m5hutF4jt5pU1@individual.net...
> The human voice: the ultimate alert device.
>
> The other night I was heading home at dusk when I came upon a string of
> 8-10 Canada geese wandering across the road. There was almost no
> traffic, and the geese were blocking three of five lanes, and heading
> for my lane.
>
> What to do? Hitting one would trump most squirrel stories, but I really
> didn't want to do that. I've seen the geese in this area ignore car
> horns, squealing tires, people shouting, etc.
>
> After a few moments thought, I let out my best imitation dog howl. All
> the geese looked at me. The lead goose eyed me suspiciously, as though
> I didn't LOOK like a free-running dog, but decided to turn around
> anyway. It slowly waddled back until it almost walked into goose #2,
> who decided to turn around then, and the ripple effect was back to the
> third and fourth geese before I passed them.
>
> It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
> week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that
> bike?"
>
> Pat

I've used the dog barking technique with good results. There are some bike
paths around here with lots of feral cats that people feed. After having
hit two cats, the second time the cat hit me. It ran into my back tire
after my front tire had passed it. Now as soon as I start down that stretch
of path I start barking loud and continuously until I've cleared the area.
Works every time.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:30:59
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Re: Better than bells

aeiouy wrote:
> I've used the dog barking technique with good results. There are some bike
> paths around here with lots of feral cats that people feed. After having
> hit two cats, the second time the cat hit me. It ran into my back tire
> after my front tire had passed it. Now as soon as I start down that stretch
> of path I start barking loud and continuously until I've cleared the area.
> Works every time.

LOL. Do the neighbors recognize you by now? "Hey, Ralph, here comes
that loony biker that thinks he's a dog!"

Pat

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:00:00
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> {context???}
>
> >> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> >> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>
> > 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

Date: 06 Sep 2006 02:14:00
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote: {context???}
>>
>>>> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
>>>> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>>
>>> 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.

> 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.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:32:54
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Pat Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4m5hutF4jt5pU1@individual.net...
> The human voice: the ultimate alert device.

> It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
> week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that
> bike?"

Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:44:55
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Pat Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4m5hutF4jt5pU1@individual.net...
>> The human voice: the ultimate alert device.
>
>> It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
>> week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that
>> bike?"
>
> Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
> horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.

I stick to:
"Let's go, man"
"Watch it there, idiot"
"HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"

Also
Pointing at drivers seems to help them see me. Maybe just a series of
coincidences leads me to believe this, but I think our social
insecurities alert us to pointers even in our periphery.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 02:57:05
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Paul Hobson" <fobson@gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:edl5md$hur$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...

> I stick to:
> "Let's go, man"
> "Watch it there, idiot"
> "HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"

I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.

Warnings are usually short, to get the motorist to look, and usually to get
the motorist to either stop or stay stopped. Simply "Bicycle!" is the most
common. "See me?!" or "Look!" is another one I use a fair bit. "Stay there!"
if they've already stopped. I also yell "Turning!" when coming down Madison
and then turning right, because I don't dare take my hands of the brakes for
a second because the hill is so steep.

Exhorations are to get them to move along:
At the green light: "All right! It's green!" If that fails to move them
along, I add, "Green means 'Go!'"
When the car in front of me needs to roll a bit so I can maintain momentum
without unclipping: "Keep on rolling, Toyota, thatta boy, keep on rolling"
When overly polite Seattle drivers are frozen into immobility at the sight
of a cyclist: "You have the right of way! Go!"

Praise is for doing the right thing. Usually it's just "good job!", although
sometimes I'll say, "good little car", too, if I'm feeling snide. "You got
it!" is for cars that passed me successfully, especially if they appeared
scared or hesitant to do so at first. A "there you go" is also for cars
doing the right thing.

Putting it all together: On the way to work, I need to stop people coming
from the Richard's Road off-ramp from whipping around the corner, illegally
taking a free right to the mall without stopping at the red. I've learned I
have to be smack dab in the lane (not Crosswalk of Death) so they'll notice
me at all, as they are still in Freeway Brain. I yell, in succession:
"BICYCLE! See me? STAY THERE. ...Good job!"

Last resort: Shriek of anticipated imminent pain. This happens
involuntarily, so it isn't like I plan to use it. It just sort of escapes.
It's when I'm convinced that something really awful is seconds away from
happening. Usually this blood-curdling cry is enough to stop a motorist in
his or her tracks.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:28:20
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Claire Petersky wrote:
> I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.
>
> Warnings are usually short, to get the motorist to look, and usually to get
> the motorist to either stop or stay stopped. Simply "Bicycle!" is the most
> common. "See me?!" or "Look!" is another one I use a fair bit. "Stay there!"
> if they've already stopped. I also yell "Turning!" when coming down Madison
> and then turning right, because I don't dare take my hands of the brakes for
> a second because the hill is so steep.
>
> Exhorations are to get them to move along:
> At the green light: "All right! It's green!" If that fails to move them
> along, I add, "Green means 'Go!'"
> When the car in front of me needs to roll a bit so I can maintain momentum
> without unclipping: "Keep on rolling, Toyota, thatta boy, keep on rolling"
> When overly polite Seattle drivers are frozen into immobility at the sight
> of a cyclist: "You have the right of way! Go!"
>
> Praise is for doing the right thing. Usually it's just "good job!", although
> sometimes I'll say, "good little car", too, if I'm feeling snide. "You got
> it!" is for cars that passed me successfully, especially if they appeared
> scared or hesitant to do so at first. A "there you go" is also for cars
> doing the right thing.

How much of this cacophony is audible to the motorist? I admit, I
mutter things like "Good cager! Turn that light!" but I mutter them
under my breath. Ditto the "Jerk!" and "Hey idiot, learn the law before
you try to teach it." that "get on the sidewalk" gets out of me. But
the only thing most cagers hear from me is, "Hey!" or "Look out!"

> Putting it all together: On the way to work, I need to stop people coming
> from the Richard's Road off-ramp from whipping around the corner, illegally
> taking a free right to the mall without stopping at the red. I've learned I
> have to be smack dab in the lane (not Crosswalk of Death) so they'll notice
> me at all, as they are still in Freeway Brain. I yell, in succession:
> "BICYCLE! See me? STAY THERE. ...Good job!"
>
> Last resort: Shriek of anticipated imminent pain. This happens
> involuntarily, so it isn't like I plan to use it. It just sort of escapes.
> It's when I'm convinced that something really awful is seconds away from
> happening. Usually this blood-curdling cry is enough to stop a motorist in
> his or her tracks.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:47:01
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Pat Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4m8b94F50ok0U2@individual.net...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>> I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.

> How much of this cacophony is audible to the motorist?

Oh, probably not much. I do have a voice that cuts through ambient noise
like a hot awl through oleo, but once we're out of summer and everyone has
the windows rolled up, I doubt they hear much of anything. Instead, all my
verbal instruction and cajoling is to make me feel more in control in
traffic. And I do believe that if I ride like I'm in command of the road, I
get more respect from motorists. As a result, they end up obeying most of my
orders, whether they can hear them or not.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 05 Sep 2006 23:40:19
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Paul Hobson" <fobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:edl5md$hur$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>
>> I stick to:
>> "Let's go, man"
>> "Watch it there, idiot"
>> "HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"
>
> I yell warnings, exhortations and praise.
[snip]
> Praise is for doing the right thing. Usually it's just "good job!"... [snip]

No need for that in Atlanta ;)

[snip]
> Last resort: Shriek of anticipated imminent pain. This happens
> involuntarily, so it isn't like I plan to use it. It just sort of escapes.
> It's when I'm convinced that something really awful is seconds away from
> happening. Usually this blood-curdling cry is enough to stop a motorist in
> his or her tracks.

I'm not proud to say that the system gets hacked and the F-bombs get
dropped all over the world in that situation. The only time I feel it
was justified was when I car rubbed [1] my rear tire at ~23 mph with a
free lane to the left and then totally ignored me at the stoplight
further down. That baby-blue Caddy is lucky I left my U-lock on the
rack that day.

[1] "Rubbed" as in, "Rubbin' is racin', Cole."

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:17:15
From: Pat in TX
Subject: Re: Better than bells

>>
>> Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
>> horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.
>
> I stick to:
> "Let's go, man"
> "Watch it there, idiot"
> "HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"

Next time, I'm going to give it the old Ah-OOO-gah car horn and see what
happens!

Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:25:08
From: Pat Lamb
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Pat in TX wrote:
>>> Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
>>> horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.
>> I stick to:
>> "Let's go, man"
>> "Watch it there, idiot"
>> "HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"
>
> Next time, I'm going to give it the old Ah-OOO-gah car horn and see what
> happens!

I prefer a roadrunner "beep beep!"

Pat

Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:34:51
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Pat in TX wrote:
>>> Sometimes motorists respond very well to a voice-generated imitated car
>>> horn -- much better than the cheery tinkle of a typical bike bell.
>> I stick to:
>> "Let's go, man"
>> "Watch it there, idiot"
>> "HEY HEY HEY HEYYYYY!!!"

Would that Hey Hey hey heyyyy be an impression of Bill Cosby's Fat Albert?
Bill Baka
>
> Next time, I'm going to give it the old Ah-OOO-gah car horn and see what
> happens!

Get one of those blast air horns for some real reaction.
Bill Baka

Date: 05 Sep 2006 14:45:45
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > >
> > I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
> > riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
> > of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> yeah, well, I was a courier at the time so it's do that or don't make
> enough to put food on the table (plus get blacklisted by dispatch), no
> choice in that kind of occupation. now, all my rides are out in the
> boonies, no bell, no problemo

Nothing throws a monkey wrench into a delivery
like hitting a door. Don't ride in the door zone,
rookies. At least, not with any speed.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:40:35
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Nothing throws a monkey wrench into a delivery
> like hitting a door. Don't ride in the door zone,
> rookies. At least, not with any speed.

Even at low speed, a door can hurt AND cause a dangerous situation. My
friend on Sunday was going quite slow (having just climbed a steep hill,
stopped at a light, and then started up again on a fair incline), but
couldn't avoid the swinging door and ended up in the middle of the road,
dazed and in pain.

Could have been /really/ ugly.

As you say, stay well clear as much as possible. Ouch.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 14:38:11
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> {context???}
>
> >> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
> >> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>
> > 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?

> Flailor... Too rich.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 13:28:03
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bob wrote:
> >
> I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
> riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
> of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

yeah, well, I was a courier at the time so it's do that or don't make
enough to put food on the table (plus get blacklisted by dispatch), no
choice in that kind of occupation. now, all my rides are out in the
boonies, no bell, no problemo

Date: 05 Sep 2006 09:55:54
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Better than bells

raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> we have a lot of idiots here asking wheres your bell ? when I was a
> courier downtown but in an emergency I want my reflexes to hit my
> brakes and yell at the person not ringing a stupid bell; once going
> through stopped traffic I had someone pop a car door on me, I was able
> to yell close the door in time; I was telling a friend of mine who
> recounted he was in a similar situation and when he rang his bell the
> person just looked where the sound came from and he slamed into the
> door- bells are dangerous

I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Date: 05 Sep 2006 18:42:29
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bob wrote:
> raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> we have a lot of idiots here asking wheres your bell ? when I was a
>> courier downtown but in an emergency I want my reflexes to hit my
>> brakes and yell at the person not ringing a stupid bell; once going
>> through stopped traffic I had someone pop a car door on me, I was able
>> to yell close the door in time; I was telling a friend of mine who
>> recounted he was in a similar situation and when he rang his bell the
>> person just looked where the sound came from and he slamed into the
>> door- bells are dangerous
>
> I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
> riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
> of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
Around 1996 one of my supervisors rode a motorcycle to work and did lane
splitting on the freeway. He was cruising at about 30-35 MPH when
somebody opened a door in front of him while the car was moving and he
hit it and went over the door. Trashed his bike and hurt his back so
naturally he sued, but I don't know what the outcome was since he left
the company before me. The point is, this asshole on the freeway opened
the car door intentionally, apparently because he was pissed off about
sitting in traffic and here comes a guy on 2 wheels, cheating the cagers.
Don't assume that just because a motorist sees you he won't open the
door anyway. This country has no shortage of jerks, so avoiding the door
zone is really the only defense.
Bill Baka

Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bob wrote:
> raamman@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> we have a lot of idiots here asking wheres your bell ? when I was a
>> courier downtown but in an emergency I want my reflexes to hit my
>> brakes and yell at the person not ringing a stupid bell; once going
>> through stopped traffic I had someone pop a car door on me, I was
>> able to yell close the door in time; I was telling a friend of mine
>> who recounted he was in a similar situation and when he rang his
>> bell the person just looked where the sound came from and he slamed
>> into the door- bells are dangerous
>
> I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
> riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
> of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.

Funny (not) you should mention that. My buddy Ken just got doored at the
end of our ride on Sunday afternoon. (Cops, paramedics, taped to board like
Gumby, E.R., whole works). Huge welt/bruise on front right chest; arm and
back jacked up. (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
have lost some scalp for sure.) Picked him up later that evening; he could
barely move.

He ended up out in the middle of the road and couldn't get up; very lucky no
cars were coming up behind him.

Nasty stuff; be careful out there.

Bill "wide berth (but then get passed too close)" S.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:41:39
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > > On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
> >
> > At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
> > truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>
> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
>
>

Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy) !!

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:32:31
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 20:41:39 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>> > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> > > On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>> >
>> > At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>> > truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>>
>> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
>>
>>
>
>Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy) !!

WTF does "whoosh" mean? You keep posting it and it's not clear what
it means. Is it some in-joke or are you actually trying to respond to
the previous poster?

JT

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:55:49
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 20:41:39 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
>>
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>>>> truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>>>
>>> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy)
>> !!
>
> WTF does "whoosh" mean? You keep posting it and it's not clear what
> it means. Is it some in-joke or are you actually trying to respond to
> the previous poster?

WHOOSH!

ROTFL

(Lead with the chin much?!? LOL )

Date: 07 Sep 2006 13:29:24
From: Jeff Starr
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:32:31 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>On 6 Sep 2006 20:41:39 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
>>
>>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>> > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> > > On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>>> >
>>> > At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>>> > truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>>>
>>> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy) !!
>
>WTF does "whoosh" mean? You keep posting it and it's not clear what
>it means. Is it some in-joke or are you actually trying to respond to
>the previous poster?
>
>JT
>
Let me say it, this time. WHOOSH!!!

If you really don't get it, you really are not very bright, and if you
do, then you are just being an asshole. either way, it is quite
pathetic.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:34:02
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:29:24 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com >
wrote:
[about my asking what "whoosh" from Ozark means]

> If you really don't get it, you
> really are not very bright,
> and if you do, then you are just
> being an asshole.

I'm pretty st about some stuff -- stuff I'm familiar with and also
stuff that involved critical thinking. I'm not bright about other
stuff and this is one of those things. What does it mean here?

>either way, it is quite
> pathetic.

Willful ignorance of important stuff is pathetic, but being honest
about my ignorance by asking a question is something I think is
admirable. It's easy for me to be up-front about not know what the
meaning is because I suspect it's something stupid or obnoxious, and
hearing the user of the term explain that would give me pleasure. In
fact, Ozarks avoidance of explaining it makes me think it's likely
he's embarrassed by it.

But in any case I'm really not sure what is means and want to know the
meaning.

JT

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:00:17
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:32:31 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Sep 2006 20:41:39 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>>>>> truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time
>>>>> offenders.
>>>>
>>>> So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Big WHOOSH (it flies even higher over a [intellectually] short guy)
>>> !!
>>
>> WTF does "whoosh" mean? You keep posting it and it's not clear what
>> it means. Is it some in-joke or are you actually trying to respond
>> to the previous poster?
>>
>> JT
>>
> Let me say it, this time. WHOOSH!!!
>
> If you really don't get it, you really are not very bright, and if you
> do, then you are just being an asshole. either way, it is quite
> pathetic.

It really is hard to tell about ol' flogittodeathlinson at times. He can
seem quite bright (and just an argumentative asswipe), but then thick as a
poopy brick a minute later. So in this case, I'd have to go with...
{drumroll please}:

OBTUSE BUTTMUNCH! LOL

(HTH -- said with furrowed brow like JFT to denote sincerity.)

Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:37:35
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> > On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>
> At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
> truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.

So please stop claiming to be anti-MHL.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:36:43
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >> >A) The California law only applies to children
>
> 10 million of them. So far.
>
> >>
> >> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
> >> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
> >> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
> >> while cycling than any other state in the US.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
> >> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
> >>
> >> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
> >> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
> >
> >How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> >think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> >they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> >cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> >enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
> >
> >
> >> What
> >> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
> >
> >When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
> >will oppose it.
>
> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?

You go tilting at windmills, Don Flailote. I'll watch and laugh.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:30:15
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >> >A) The California law only applies to children
>
> 10 million of them. So far.
>
> >>
> >> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
> >> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
> >> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
> >> while cycling than any other state in the US.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
> >> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
> >>
> >> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
> >> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
> >
> >How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> >think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> >they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> >cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> >enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
> >
> >
> >> What
> >> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
> >
> >When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
> >will oppose it.
>
> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?

At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:54:02
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 18:30:15 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >A) The California law only applies to children
>>
>> 10 million of them. So far.
>>
>> >>
>> >> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
>> >> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
>> >> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
>> >> while cycling than any other state in the US.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
>> >> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
>> >>
>> >> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
>> >> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
>> >
>> >How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
>> >think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
>> >they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
>> >cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
>> >enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
>> >
>> >
>> >> What
>> >> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
>> >
>> >When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
>> >will oppose it.
>>
>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>
>At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.

What a selfish dick you are. Pretend to care about liberty but you
really don't. Lame.

JT

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:24:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 18:30:15 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
>>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> A) The California law only applies to children
>>>
>>> 10 million of them. So far.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
>>>>> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is
>>>>> mandatory, and now requires a greater number of its residents to
>>>>> wear helmets while cycling than any other state in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many
>>>>>> California cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they
>>>>> cannot complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam
>>>>> hat.
>>>>
>>>> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you
>>>> really think that the state and local police, underfunded and
>>>> undermanned as they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over
>>>> with their squad cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a
>>>> tax increase to fund enforcement of such a silly and obscure law?
>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What
>>>>> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
>>>>
>>>> When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a
>>>> vote, I will oppose it.
>>>
>>> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
>>
>> At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
>> truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>
> What a selfish dick you are. Pretend to care about liberty but you
> really don't. Lame.

:-D :-P <eg > :o) 8-) 8-O ROTFL :-D :-P <eg> :o) 8-) 8-O

{8-9 annoying sig lines -- /LAME/ -- snipped}

Bill "bonus points for JFT's furrowed brow, simulating sincerity" S.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:29:35
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:24:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>{8-9 annoying sig lines -- /LAME/ -- snipped}

You can count to eight or nine, presumably without a calculator. Good
going. LOL.

JT

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

Date: 09 Sep 2006 03:45:39
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill "BS" Sornson wrote:
> ...
> The fact is you didn't say anything until the Ultimate Net Nerd said
> something, and suddenly you joined in. (Anyone can re-read the thread,
> unless immersing one's head in boiling oil would be preferable.)....

Bring on the boiling oil!

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Date: 09 Sep 2006 15:52:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill "BS" Sornson wrote:
>> ...
>> The fact is you didn't say anything until the Ultimate Net Nerd said
>> something, and suddenly you joined in. (Anyone can re-read the
>> thread, unless immersing one's head in boiling oil would be
>> preferable.)....
>
> Bring on the boiling oil!

Caramel flavoring, or rancid?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:24:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> {8-9 annoying sig lines -- /LAME/ -- snipped}
>
> You can count to eight or nine, presumably without a calculator. Good
> going.

Dick. (Just borrowing your word used above to Ozark because he doesn't
whine about MHLs that DON'T AFFECT HIM.)

Since you're such a stickler for Usenet "rules", why don't you look into
signatures. If you delineate your insipid 8-line, content-free sig with the
PROPER KING (--), then your ubiquitous blather will appear AS a sig (that
is, not get copied in replies as "fresh text" each time). I'll put some
examples below. When you reply (as you compulsively will), you'll note that
these /true sig files/ don't reappear unless you manually paste them back.
HTH.

As for my calculator, the portfolio's taken a hit last few days, but if I
stop rounding off to nearest dollar than pretty soon it WON'T handle all
nine digits! Such a problem! LOL

Hey, quick John: what's 240,000 divided by 345,000,000? Would you know the
answer was off by a decimal point /without/ a calculator? (That is, just
recognize it?) I don't think so.

Anyway, here are some sigs for you. You're becoming tiresome...AGAIN.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}
--
If there is a grandeur in you, you will find grandeur in porters and sweeps.
- -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
(that's for Frank)
--
Whassamatter with ya, got rice paper skin and an inferiority complex or
something? FUCK, child, if you're not the wimpiest runt of whelps then the
sun has never lit up a day.

Bet those coloured plastic balls at the bottom of that little slide really
hurt, eh?

The last time I came across anything as sensitive as you, it was measuring
single fucking photons.

Now, go grow a dick so you can go fuck yourself, cuntybottytwattychops.
-- Shaun aRe, AM-B 11/05

Just for you <eg >

Date: 07 Sep 2006 21:01:01
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:33:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
> >>>>>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL
> >>>>
> >>>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
> >>>
> >>> Wah. LOL
> >>
> >> If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.
> >
> >Lighten up, Frances.
>
> Don't do it again.
>

Fuck you, asshole. Report me to my ISP. NOTHING will happen. Jerkoff.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:17:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:33:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me
>>>>>>>> to make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wah. LOL
>>>>
>>>> If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.
>>>
>>> Lighten up, Frances.
>>
>> Don't do it again.

> Fuck you, asshole. Report me to my ISP. NOTHING will happen. Jerkoff.

What cracks me up is, after all the times he's misrepresented what I've said
and/or meant -- not to mention telling outright lies and distortions -- the
one time I make an /obviously humorous/ post at his expense, he stomps his
foot and threatens to tattle. (Never mind that most ISPs have no idea what
Usenet even is; and if something isn't malicious or demonstrably harmful,
they couldn't care less.)

The dude is /tight/. LOL

Date: 08 Sep 2006 07:16:37
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:17:12 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
[about me]
>What cracks me up is, after all the times he's misrepresented what I've said
>and/or meant --

You misrepresent what you say yourself often enough. The most
explicit example was the bit where you said something was an email
address, then said you knew it wasn't, etc.

JT

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 16:42:57
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:17:12 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> [about me]
>> What cracks me up is, after all the times he's misrepresented what
>> I've said and/or meant --
>
> You misrepresent what you say yourself often enough. The most
> explicit example was the bit where you said something was an email
> address, then said you knew it wasn't, etc.

Whoosh redux!

(I guess I'll have to spell out /everything/ for Flog Man -- especially
sarcasm and irony -- and God help me when it also requires considering
CONTEXT of other posts or threads. Maybe this crap /is/ rocket science to
some people.)

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:37:29
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
> content-free sig with the
> PROPER KING (--),

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"

JT

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 04:02:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <do71g2djk0t7im7n4p90gek7r2nuf5q75k@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
> > If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
> > content-free sig with the
> > PROPER KING (--),
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"

JT, to be precise, the delimiter between the body of a
message and the signature is dash-dash-space-newline. Put
JT after the delimiter.

--
Michael Press

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:06:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>> content-free sig with the
>> PROPER KING (--),
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>
> JT

Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)

Date: 08 Sep 2006 03:57:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
> >> content-free sig with the
> >> PROPER KING (--),
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
> >
> > JT
>
> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)

What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
someone improves himself in response to something you do,
you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
around you get better, and you remain the same.

--
Michael Press

Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:20:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>>>> content-free sig with the
>>>> PROPER KING (--),
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>>>
>>> JT
>>
>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
>
> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
> around you get better, and you remain the same.

Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all people, Mr.
Net Nanny himself!)

If someone, say, top-posts and I ask them to stop and they do, why on earth
would I keep on "ridiculing" them?

You're just making stuff up...AGAIN.

I, for one, will appreciate it if JFT makes his sig a true sig, as it's a
PITA to have to trim it before each reply.

BTW, who are you? LOL

Date: 08 Sep 2006 19:54:32
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <V47Mg.501$xg7.385@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
> >>>> content-free sig with the
> >>>> PROPER KING (--),
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
> >>>
> >>> JT
> >>
> >> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
> >
> > What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
> > someone improves himself in response to something you do,
> > you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
> > around you get better, and you remain the same.
>
> Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all people, Mr.
> Net Nanny himself!)

The `Yes, Virginia ...' is patronizing.

--
Michael Press

Date: 09 Sep 2006 00:20:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <V47Mg.501$xg7.385@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>>>>>> content-free sig with the
>>>>>> PROPER KING (--),
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>
>>>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
>>>
>>> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
>>> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
>>> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
>>> around you get better, and you remain the same.
>>
>> Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all
>> people, Mr. Net Nanny himself!)
>
> The `Yes, Virginia ...' is patronizing.

"Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression. Please
look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an exclamation like "Holy
cow", and was NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT FLOGGER.)

JESUS IS EVERYONE TAKING MORON PILLS TODAY?!?

(If, by chance, you expected me to never engage Flogger again about anything
just because he finally fixed his sig, then a) you should just say so; and
b) you're nuts. HTH)

Date: 09 Sep 2006 04:13:24
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In article <dNnMg.2342$rE5.1561@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <V47Mg.501$xg7.385@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> >>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
> >>>>>> content-free sig with the
> >>>>>> PROPER KING (--),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JT
> >>>>
> >>>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
> >>>
> >>> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
> >>> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
> >>> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
> >>> around you get better, and you remain the same.
> >>
> >> Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all
> >> people, Mr. Net Nanny himself!)
> >
> > The `Yes, Virginia ...' is patronizing.
>
> "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression. Please
> look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an exclamation like "Holy
> cow",

I know the expression. JT changed his signature because he
understood something from what you said. Since you are in
an adversarial relationship your reks and the partial
quote come across as patronizing.

--
Michael Press

Date: 09 Sep 2006 06:43:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <dNnMg.2342$rE5.1561@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <V47Mg.501$xg7.385@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>>>>>>>> content-free sig with the
>>>>>>>> PROPER KING (--),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
>>>>> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
>>>>> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
>>>>> around you get better, and you remain the same.
>>>>
>>>> Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all
>>>> people, Mr. Net Nanny himself!)
>>>
>>> The `Yes, Virginia ...' is patronizing.
>>
>> "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression.
>> Please look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an
>> exclamation like "Holy cow",
>
> I know the expression. JT changed his signature because he
> understood something from what you said. Since you are in
> an adversarial relationship your reks and the partial
> quote come across as patronizing.]

The "Yes, Virginia" rek was directed at "YOU" -- THE READER you, that
is -- and was meant to establish a connection. (It was supposed to show I
was including and considering the reader -- "Virginia" -- addressing "her"
to hopefully bring a smile.)

It brought something, alright -- you out of the woodwork to waste too much
of both of our time.

Out.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:20:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>"Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression. Please
>look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an exclamation like "Holy
>cow", and was NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT FLOGGER.)
>
>JESUS IS EVERYONE TAKING MORON PILLS TODAY?!?

how about just writing clearly and not using euphemisms and witty
sayings that you think are universal? If there is something where
some obscurity is actually really clever, then try it. But you use
that sort of device all the time and it's not very funny. I surely
don't get it and imagine a lot of people don't.

and Sorni also wrote:
> The expression "trip on your dick" is known
> to most people; however, it's a little crude. SO, I said "...stop
> tripping on your...foot" to be humorous.

In the "trip on a dick" thing -- is it somehow funnier that you didn't
write it clearly? Actually it's not funny either way, and I think you
know that, so you try to appear clever by hiding what you really mean,
which turns out to be lame.

JT

PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
--
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31
From: Jeff Starr
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>
>JT
>
>PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
>world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
>stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.

For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
explaining, or fixing:

"The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".

The above makes no sense.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>JT
>>
>>PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
>>world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
>>stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
>
>For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
>explaining, or fixing:
>
> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>
>The above makes no sense.
>
>

It parses completely and correctly. I am not surprised that you
cannot understand it - after all, you are the one who claims that a
single anecdote makes a statistical measure "innaccurate".

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:58:28
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
>>>PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
>>>world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
>>>stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
>>
>>For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
>>explaining, or fixing:
>>
>> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>>
>>The above makes no sense.
>>
>>
>
>It parses completely and correctly.

Yeah, but I'll admit it wasn't as clear as it could be. I meant that
Sorni had said that almost every serious cyclist where he lives uses a
helmet, though he once saw a guy who looked like a serious cyclist not
wearing one.

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

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:02:24
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>>
>>>> PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world.
>>>> The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and
>>>> your stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
>>>
>>> For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
>>> explaining, or fixing:
>>>
>>> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>>>
>>> The above makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It parses completely and correctly.
>
> Yeah, but I'll admit it wasn't as clear as it could be. I meant that
> Sorni had said that almost every serious cyclist where he lives uses a
> helmet, though he once saw a guy who looked like a serious cyclist not
> wearing one.

Typical Flogger Lie {tm}. Perhaps you kept a detailed record like you do
with everything else it seems? You'll see I was talking about /one day/ --
the very day's ride I posted IIRC -- not "ever".

What I did say and will reitierate is that nearly all the "real road riders"
I see here in San Diego -- men and women on drop-bar bikes with skinny tires
and wearing "bike clothes" like shoes, shorts and shirts (jerseys) -- wear
helmets. It's truly /unusual/ to see one with a bare head or even a cycling
cap. I'd put it at less than 10%, maybe 5%.

But hey, I also remember you being fair in your posting that one time. It
WAS startling, I must admit! LOL

Date: 09 Sep 2006 14:56:12
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:58:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>>
>>>>PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
>>>>world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
>>>>stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
>>>
>>>For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
>>>explaining, or fixing:
>>>
>>> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>>>
>>>The above makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It parses completely and correctly.
>
>Yeah, but I'll admit it wasn't as clear as it could be.

On the contrary it was perfectly clear. Compact, which probably
confused Starr; but capable of no other interpretation than that which
was meant.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 08:10:07
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In rec.bicycles.misc jtaylor@nospam.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:58:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
>>>>>world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets, and your
>>>>>stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.
>>>>
>>>>For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how about
>>>>explaining, or fixing:
>>>>
>>>> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>>>>
>>>>The above makes no sense.
>>>
>>>It parses completely and correctly.
>>
>>Yeah, but I'll admit it wasn't as clear as it could be.
>
> On the contrary it was perfectly clear. Compact, which probably
> confused Starr; but capable of no other interpretation than that which
> was meant.

<nitpick mode="gram" >Actually, it was somewhat unclear because of
your lack of commas.

"The world where all serious cyclists, less one, wear helmets."

The commas separate out the aside comment and make it much clearer.

</nitpick mode="gram" >

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead. -- Bill Cole

Date: 09 Sep 2006 16:04:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Dane Buson wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc jtaylor@nospam.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:58:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:48:32 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:16:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <jstarr@animalpc.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:16:41 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse
>>>>>> world. The world where all serious cyclists less one wear
>>>>>> helmets, and your stupid phrases are universally known. It's
>>>>>> all a piece.
>>>>>
>>>>> For someone lecturing on clarity and saying what you mean, how
>>>>> about explaining, or fixing:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets".
>>>>>
>>>>> The above makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> It parses completely and correctly.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but I'll admit it wasn't as clear as it could be.
>>
>> On the contrary it was perfectly clear. Compact, which probably
>> confused Starr; but capable of no other interpretation than that
>> which was meant.
>
> <nitpick mode="gram">Actually, it was somewhat unclear because of
> your lack of commas.
>
> "The world where all serious cyclists, less one, wear helmets."
>
> The commas separate out the aside comment and make it much clearer.
>
> </nitpick mode="gram">

Never mind, of course, that it was /mistaken/ (sounds nicer than "yet
another God-damned Flogger Lie" {tm}).

Date: 09 Sep 2006 12:10:52
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

In rec.bicycles.tech Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>>
>> <nitpick mode="gram">Actually, it was somewhat unclear because of
>> your lack of commas.
>>
>> "The world where all serious cyclists, less one, wear helmets."
>>
>> The commas separate out the aside comment and make it much clearer.
>>
>> </nitpick mode="gram">
>
> Never mind, of course, that it was /mistaken/ (sounds nicer than "yet
> another God-damned Flogger Lie" {tm}).

Meh, I'm not really interested in your flame war. [1] I simply wanted
to point out the most efficacious way to add clarity to it.

ObBike: I fastened my cushion to my Xtracycle's snapdeck. Of course now
it's raining, so I finally have to get around to attaching the
fenders to it. I haven't bothered as it's been exceptionally dry
here in the PNW. [2]

[1] How many are you carrying on at the moment?
[2] http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=26557

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that
harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Date: 09 Sep 2006 15:54:33
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:10:52 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.tech Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>
>>> <nitpick mode="gram">Actually, it was somewhat unclear because of
>>> your lack of commas.
>>>
>>> "The world where all serious cyclists, less one, wear helmets."
>>>
>>> The commas separate out the aside comment and make it much clearer.
>>>
>>> </nitpick mode="gram">
>>
>> Never mind, of course, that it was /mistaken/ (sounds nicer than "yet
>> another God-damned Flogger Lie" {tm}).
>
>Meh, I'm not really interested in your flame war. [1] I simply wanted
>to point out the most efficacious way to add clarity to it.
>

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

Date: 09 Sep 2006 02:30:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:20:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
{Hey, where'd the CONTEXT go?!?}

>> "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression.
>> Please look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an
>> exclamation like "Holy cow", and was NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT FLOGGER.)
>>
>> JESUS IS EVERYONE TAKING MORON PILLS TODAY?!?

> How about just writing clearly and not using euphemisms and witty
> sayings that you think are universal? If there is something where
> some obscurity is actually really clever, then try it. But you use
> that sort of device all the time and it's not very funny. I surely
> don't get it and imagine a lot of people don't.

You've never heard, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?

How about, "To the moon, Alice"?

Or, "This is the big one. I'm coming, Elizabeth!"?

Damn Commie. Explains a lot.

> and Sorni also wrote:

>> The expression "trip on your dick" is known
>> to most people; however, it's a little crude. SO, I said "...stop
>> tripping on your...foot" to be humorous.

> In the "trip on a dick" thing -- is it somehow funnier that you didn't
> write it clearly? Actually it's not funny either way, and I think you
> know that, so you try to appear clever by hiding what you really mean,
> which turns out to be lame.

I was saying, POLITELY, that you keep sabotaging your own posts with a
simple, common format error -- one that I'd never bother mentioning except
that you're so God-damned anal and such a stick-up-the-ass stickler for
detail that I thought you'd appreciate it (as indeed you did re. the sig
file matter). Then when, true to form, you were a whiny prick about it, I
decided to just let you keep making the little error.

From now on, whenever I see it, I'll smile the smile of the knowing and move
on. (The alternative, of course, would be to pull a Floglinson and
brow-beat you relentlessly for months on end about it. Like, say, with
message IDs and calculators. LOL )

> PS -- I think you operate in a pretty closed and undiverse world. The
> world where all serious cyclists less one wear helmets

???

> , and your
> stupid phrases are universally known. It's all a piece.

I'll wager that 80% or more of people on here have heard that "Yes,
Virginia" phrase, as well as the one about stepping on your pee-pee.
Perhaps it's YOU who's led a sheltered life? I realize you don't interact
with others well. Are you short by any chance? I'm catching a whiff of a
Napoleonic Complex at work here. Explains a lot.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 23:59:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:30:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:20:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>{Hey, where'd the CONTEXT go?!?}
>
>>> "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression.
>>> Please look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an
>>> exclamation like "Holy cow", and was NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT FLOGGER.)
>>>
>>> JESUS IS EVERYONE TAKING MORON PILLS TODAY?!?
>
>> How about just writing clearly and not using euphemisms and witty
>> sayings that you think are universal? If there is something where
>> some obscurity is actually really clever, then try it. But you use
>> that sort of device all the time and it's not very funny. I surely
>> don't get it and imagine a lot of people don't.
>
>You've never heard, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
>
>How about, "To the moon, Alice"?
>
>Or, "This is the big one. I'm coming, Elizabeth!"?
>
>Damn Commie. Explains a lot.
>
>> and Sorni also wrote:
>
>>> The expression "trip on your dick" is known
>>> to most people; however, it's a little crude. SO, I said "...stop
>>> tripping on your...foot" to be humorous.
>
>> In the "trip on a dick" thing -- is it somehow funnier that you didn't
>> write it clearly? Actually it's not funny either way, and I think you
>> know that, so you try to appear clever by hiding what you really mean,
>> which turns out to be lame.

I've heard "the the moon" but don't really understand what's funny
about it when most people use it. I've heard the Virgina Santa Claus
thing and I don't see what your point is with that. I guess I could
look it up to understand your point, but is that really how you want
to write -- to frequently use sayings that your reader has to look up
to understand. Why not be clear.

The "trip on a dick" thing I probably heard -- it's the sort of dopey
rhyme kids make but I don't actually know what it means.

And more to the point, I know lots of people who wouldn't get your
jokes/euphemisms.

>I was saying, POLITELY, that you keep sabotaging your own posts with a
>simple, common format error -- one that I'd never bother mentioning except
>that you're so God-damned anal and such a stick-up-the-ass stickler for
>detail that I thought you'd appreciate it (as indeed you did re. the sig
>file matter). Then when, true to form, you were a whiny prick about it, I
>decided to just let you keep making the little error.

You told me about that error (lack of "--") once, I quickly looked
around the internet to see if you were correct, saw that your advice
was basically right, and I fixed it. Big deal. And in looking around
the internet, I saw your advice was slightly flawed. It was still
useful and I thanked you for it.

That's what mature people do -- they listen to advice, evaluate it,
use it if the advice is good, and thank the other person for it.

Considering you'd been ragging on me to cut the length of my sig as it
was annoying you to have to cut it when replying to me, I don't
understand why you didn't just point out the "-- " thing to me earlier
so we all could have benefited. Instead, on the one hand you keep
complaining about my sig and on the other you withhold information
that would solve your problem.

So who is petty? Who is the prick?

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

Date: 09 Sep 2006 06:39:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:30:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:20:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>> {Hey, where'd the CONTEXT go?!?}
>>
>>>> "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" is a well-known expression.
>>>> Please look it up if necessary. (Plus, it was used as an
>>>> exclamation like "Holy cow", and was NOT EVEN DIRECTED AT FLOGGER.)
>>>>
>>>> JESUS IS EVERYONE TAKING MORON PILLS TODAY?!?
>>
>>> How about just writing clearly and not using euphemisms and witty
>>> sayings that you think are universal? If there is something where
>>> some obscurity is actually really clever, then try it. But you use
>>> that sort of device all the time and it's not very funny. I surely
>>> don't get it and imagine a lot of people don't.
>>
>> You've never heard, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
>>
>> How about, "To the moon, Alice"?
>>
>> Or, "This is the big one. I'm coming, Elizabeth!"?
>>
>> Damn Commie. Explains a lot.
>>
>>> and Sorni also wrote:
>>
>>>> The expression "trip on your dick" is known
>>>> to most people; however, it's a little crude. SO, I said "...stop
>>>> tripping on your...foot" to be humorous.
>>
>>> In the "trip on a dick" thing -- is it somehow funnier that you
>>> didn't write it clearly? Actually it's not funny either way, and I
>>> think you know that, so you try to appear clever by hiding what you
>>> really mean, which turns out to be lame.
>
> I've heard "the the moon" but don't really understand what's funny
> about it when most people use it. I've heard the Virgina Santa Claus
> thing and I don't see what your point is with that. I guess I could
> look it up to understand your point, but is that really how you want
> to write -- to frequently use sayings that your reader has to look up
> to understand. Why not be clear.

The fact is you didn't say anything until the Ultimate Net Nerd said
something, and suddenly you joined in. (Anyone can re-read the thread,
unless immersing one's head in boiling oil would be preferable.)

You learned something -- from ME of all people -- thus "fixing" your sig. I
expressed pleasure and surprise at this, tacking on a little parenthetical
"Yes, Virginia, miracles do happen". It was (and is) a light-hearted
comment -- and only a couple of humorless dweebs like Press and then you
would make an issue of it.

As for "being clear", I'll wager that most people knew /exactly/ what it
meant -- even if they didn't know about our rather "contentious" history.

Finally, as to why people use expressions like, "To the moon, Alice", why
don't you get a sociologist to explain it to you. It's based on shared
experience, pleasant childhood memories, stuff like that -- stuff that
apparently you just don't get because you either grew up in a bubble or are
just a "Sour Gus" (that's yet another expression, Bubble Boy).

> The "trip on a dick" thing I probably heard -- it's the sort of dopey
> rhyme kids make but I don't actually know what it means.

It's not a rhyme, moron. It's a rather crass expression similar to
"shooting yourself in the foot". That's why I refrained from using it --
which in itself is humorous except to the humorless.

> And more to the point, I know lots of people who wouldn't get your
> jokes/euphemisms.
>
>> I was saying, POLITELY, that you keep sabotaging your own posts with
>> a simple, common format error -- one that I'd never bother
>> mentioning except that you're so God-damned anal and such a
>> stick-up-the-ass stickler for detail that I thought you'd appreciate
>> it (as indeed you did re. the sig file matter). Then when, true to
>> form, you were a whiny prick about it, I decided to just let you
>> keep making the little error.
>
> You told me about that error (lack of "--") once, I quickly looked
> around the internet to see if you were correct, saw that your advice
> was basically right, and I fixed it. Big deal. And in looking around
> the internet, I saw your advice was slightly flawed. It was still
> useful and I thanked you for it.
>
> That's what mature people do -- they listen to advice, evaluate it,
> use it if the advice is good, and thank the other person for it.
>
> Considering you'd been ragging on me to cut the length of my sig as it
> was annoying you to have to cut it when replying to me, I don't
> understand why you didn't just point out the "-- " thing to me earlier
> so we all could have benefited. Instead, on the one hand you keep
> complaining about my sig and on the other you withhold information
> that would solve your problem.

That WASN'T the "error" I meant. The sig one was finished. I then went on
to suggest how you could make your "emoticon" things appear the way they're
supposed to instead of just letters the way you're doing it now. You didn't
get it (still don't, apparently). Since you're so colorless and humorless
anyway, I suggest you just stop trying to use them altogether. They're
simply not "you" -- and come off as affectations when you include them
(especially ill-formatted so they don't animate) as much as you've been
doing lately. I realize you're trying to mock me with them, which makes
your faulty formatting all the funnier. (Nice aliteration, eh?)

Damn it's tiring talking to you...

> So who is petty?

You, repeatedly. (Message IDs. Calculator. Brag about pricey helmet
purchase. Want more?)

> Who is the prick?

You, repeatedly. (See above, just for starters.)
>
> JT

BS

Date: 08 Sep 2006 07:14:35
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:20:53 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>>>>> content-free sig with the
>>>>> PROPER KING (--),
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>
>>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
>>
>> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
>> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
>> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
>> around you get better, and you remain the same.
>
>Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all people, Mr.
>Net Nanny himself!)
>
>If someone, say, top-posts and I ask them to stop and they do, why on earth
>would I keep on "ridiculing" them?

Because you're too dopey to ridicule someone in a clever way. You
tend to rely on the sort of jokes that amuse pre-teens: like starting
to write something, then halting partway through and chuckling to
yourself. Because your "target" doesn't get it.

Like this recent gem from you:

>If you don't put a----- oh, forget it.

>I've got a better idea; I'll tell you when you reply.

Totally unclear to me but makes you chuckle, right? It's so lame.

We did that in grade school and even then the ster kids knew it
wasn't really that funny.

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 17:07:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:20:53 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <0C1Mg.223$%i.52@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you delineate your insipid 8-line,
>>>>>> content-free sig with the
>>>>>> PROPER KING (--),
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'm trying to add the "--"
>>>>>
>>>>> JT
>>>>
>>>> Wow! Much better! (See, Virginia, there IS hope for humanity!)
>>>
>>> What is your aim? This has happened before. Even when
>>> someone improves himself in response to something you do,
>>> you go on ridiculing. The result of this is that people
>>> around you get better, and you remain the same.
>>
>> Example? What you wrote makes no sense. (And from you, of all
>> people, Mr. Net Nanny himself!)
>>
>> If someone, say, top-posts and I ask them to stop and they do, why
>> on earth would I keep on "ridiculing" them?
>
> Because you're too dopey to ridicule someone in a clever way.

Ah, the irony! This from a guy who's still haranguing me for a sarcastic
rek about a message ID and my use of a small pocket calculator to do MY
OWN proposed math problem. How long has it been now? How many times have
you done it? "Too dopey to ridicule someone in a clever way" has YOU all
over it. HTH

You're just too much, Floglinson. Hateful and hilarious in one fell swoop.
LOL

> Like this recent gem from you:

{NO CONTEXT, OF COURSE}

>> If you don't put a----- oh, forget it.

I was going to explain how you could stop tripping over your own...let's say
foot in your postings, and then decided it's more fun watching you continue
to do it. (I /did/ hint at how you could stop though. Too dense to grasp
it?)

>> I've got a better idea; I'll tell you when you reply.

> Totally unclear to me but makes you chuckle, right? It's so lame.

I meant I was ready to plonk you because you're such a hypocritical prick,
but you didn't take the bait.

Maybe next time.

> We did that in grade school and even then the ster kids knew it
> wasn't really that funny.

You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Nothing new about
that.

You're just so tiresome. I bet you wear out those around you. (Like your
own club mates who can't stand you! LOL )

Date: 08 Sep 2006 18:32:29
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:07:13 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>I was going to explain how you could stop tripping over your own...let's say
>foot in your postings, and then decided it's more fun watching you continue
>to do it. (I /did/ hint at how you could stop though. Too dense to grasp
>it?)

The ellipsis above is a classic example of lameness of your humor.
It's the sort of things kids do -- by being unclear they can laugh at
the fact that the other person doesn't understand what they mean. It
takes no intelligence or insight to do that -- instead it's ha ha ha,
he doesn't know what I meant to say and it might be very funny or
nasty, but I'm too insecure to even write it clearly, so I'll just be
vague and laugh that the other guy doesn't get it. Ha ha.

What's next? Fart jokes? That's about the level of your humor at the
moment.

(snips)

> (I /did/ hint at how you could
> stop though. Too dense to grasp
> it?)

I guess I am too dense. In this sort of discussion with someone of
such a puerile sense of humor I'll miss many or most hints. On the
other hand, I'll tell you things as clearly as I can or ask you
questions as clearly as I can. Our discussion would be much more
straightforward if you would do the same.

But if you get a chuckle out of saying things you don't expect me to
understand, or hinting at stuff that some or many readers (including
me) will miss, then laugh away.

JT

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

Date: 09 Sep 2006 00:15:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:07:13 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> I was going to explain how you could stop tripping over your
>> own...let's say foot in your postings, and then decided it's more
>> fun watching you continue to do it. (I /did/ hint at how you could
>> stop though. Too dense to grasp it?)
>
> The ellipsis above is a classic example of lameness of your humor.
> It's the sort of things kids do -- by being unclear they can laugh at
> the fact that the other person doesn't understand what they mean.

ANYONE but you would get that, Flogger. The expression "trip on your dick"
is known to most people; however, it's a little crude. SO, I said "...stop
tripping on your...foot" to be humorous. God, you're a thick prick (staying
on topic).

> It
> takes no intelligence or insight to do that -- instead it's ha ha ha,
> he doesn't know what I meant to say and it might be very funny or
> nasty, but I'm too insecure to even write it clearly, so I'll just be
> vague and laugh that the other guy doesn't get it. Ha ha.

Are you having a seizure of some sort? You're flailing like...well, more
than usual, anyway. (That was just for you.)

> What's next? Fart jokes? That's about the level of your humor at the
> moment.

I bet yours are just little squeaks out that pinhole. LOL LIGHTEN UP,
FRANCES! SHEESH!

> (snips)
>
>> (I /did/ hint at how you could
>> stop though. Too dense to grasp
>> it?)
>
> I guess I am too dense. In this sort of discussion with someone of
> such a puerile sense of humor I'll miss many or most hints.

"Puerile?" It was about your formatting, moron. You seem to have
adolescent humor etched in your soul lately. Anything you want to share
with the group? LOL

> {missing text}
> ... other hand, I'll tell you things as clearly as I can or ask you
> questions as clearly as I can. Our discussion would be much more
> straightforward if you would do the same.
>
> But if you get a chuckle out of saying things you don't expect me to
> understand, or hinting at stuff that some or many readers (including
> me) will miss, then laugh away.

You must be a riot at parties.

ROTFL Poor Flogger ROTFL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:36:12
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Hey, quick John: what's 240,000 divided by 345,000,000? Would you know the
>answer was off by a decimal point /without/ a calculator? (That is, just
>recognize it?) I don't think so.
> Hey, quick John: what's 240,000
> divided by 345,000,000? Would you
> know the answer was off by a decimal point
> /without/ a calculator? (That is, just
> recognize it?) I don't think so.

You're right -- I wouldn't spot the error if the wrong result was
presented to me. However, if there was any reason to doubt the result
I could work it out roughly in my head by chopping off zeros. Or using
a pen and paper.

If doing the calculation myself I'd avoid using calculators -- instead
I'd use either pen/paper or a spreadsheet program because it's too
easy for me to miss my typing mistakes with simple calculators -- I
like to see the numerator and divisor together with the result so I'll
catch a typing error. That is to say, I'm aware of a potential
failing of mine. I can easily make mistakes with math and with typing,
and I know that. For some people calculators are good tools, but not
for me.

But to get back to the most important aspect of the math error -- if
someone who seems proficient at math said my math was wrong I'd look
at it carefully instead of repeating the error and arguing for a wrong
result.

That's why you're such a dope -- lack of prompt error correction and
an ego that resists learning. Everyone makes mistakes. I sure do. I
try to avoid them, but they will happen. I'm not a big dope, but I
make mistakes. The big dopes are the ones that defend their errors or
pass off responsiblity for them.

In case that's too subtle for you to understand, I'll try to write it
write it in a FORMAT YOU//CAN UNDERSTAND//:::::

EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES. BUT THE ///// R*E*A*L D*O*P*E*S ///// ARE
THE ONES THAT _DEFEND_ THEIR ERRORS or _PASS_ _OFF_ RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THEM.
LOLROTFLATTHEDOPEYDOPE?????!!!!!!!OMGHE'SOSFUNNY...and_lame_and-PS
did-someone-snip-some-context????.

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:21:04
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>
>Hey, quick John: what's 240,000 divided by 345,000,000? Would you know the
>answer was off by a decimal point /without/ a calculator? (That is, just
>recognize it?) I don't think so.
>

Oh, come on, that's easy.

you've got 240/345, that's about .6, and three zeros divided by six
zeros, that's three zeros between the decimal point and the first
significant digit.

Didn't someone already explain to you how to do simple maths like
that?

(Googles...)

Oh yes, there it is...

Need a cite?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 16:38:54
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:30:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey, quick John: what's 240,000 divided by 345,000,000? Would you
>> know the answer was off by a decimal point /without/ a calculator?
>> (That is, just recognize it?) I don't think so.
>>
>
>
> Oh, come on, that's easy.
>
> you've got 240/345, that's about .6, and three zeros divided by six
> zeros, that's three zeros between the decimal point and the first
> significant digit.

Yes, "j", if I had it to do over again I'd break it down that way. That's
one reason people /use/ a calculator -- to not have to bother with that.
(If you divide 200 by 10 do you first say, well, that's like 100 by 5? Or
do you just "enter" -- literally or mentally -- the numbers?)

Yes, my calculator only allows 8 digits; and yes I used it without realizing
that. Yes, it never occurred to me that the answer was off by a tenth
because it didn't jump up and TELL me that it didn't accept the last digit;
it just produced a so-called result. (I do recall nicer calculators
actually showing a little symbol to denote too much input; this one
doesn't.)

Of course, all this is used to obscure the initial point of the calculation
that *I* put forth: that Tony was using misleading figures to make fatal
hematomas seem much more commonly reported than they really are. (Or
something like that; I don't keep memos of this crap like Flogmanson.)

I love my calculator. It was free, and I've never had to change the battery
in well over 20 years. It's MUCH more reliable than you or Flogger! LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 18:38:34
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:38:54 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

Sorni wrote:
> Yes, my calculator only allows 8 digits;
> and yes I used it without realizing
> that. Yes, it never occurred to me that
> the answer was off by a tenth
> because it didn't jump up and TELL me
> that it didn't accept the last digit;
> it just produced a so-called result.

That's an understandable error. Repeating it in arguing against
someone who told you you were wrong is less understandable, and
actually funny in a dopey sort of way.

> Of course, all this is used to
> obscure the initial point of the calculation
> that *I* put forth:

I wasn't even following the details of your discussion but rather the
"meta" problem of yours -- antipathy toward learning and antipathy
towards scientific knowledge. You could have been right or wrong in
that little "battle" (I suspect you were wrong, but that's besides my
point) but your overall approach to this helmet "war", and
decisionmaking in general, is flawed.

> that Tony was using misleading
> figures to make fatal
> hematomas seem much more commonly
> reported than they really are.
>(Or something like that; I don't keep
> memos of this crap

Your computer probably has it -- I think you're using Outlook Express
and I think it keeps messages you sent.

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:05:16
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:38:54 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
> Sorni wrote:
>> Yes, my calculator only allows 8 digits;
>> and yes I used it without realizing
>> that. Yes, it never occurred to me that
>> the answer was off by a tenth
>> because it didn't jump up and TELL me
>> that it didn't accept the last digit;
>> it just produced a so-called result.

> That's an understandable error. Repeating it in arguing against
> someone who told you you were wrong is less understandable, and
> actually funny in a dopey sort of way.

At first, they only /hinted/ that I was wrong by insulting me, IIRC. It
wasn't for quite a few more posts that someone finally wrote /something/
that was clear and objective, and I immediately recognized what had happened
and corrected it.

Now, I'm sure you chose to either ignore or forget that, as it doesn't fit
your petty, hateful template. (VERY similar to ongoing political flame
fests, as well as of course the Lid Wars.) Thus, here you are months later
still being a prick about something so inconsequential. Says a LOT more
about you than it does my little pocket calculator, doesn't it?

Yes, John, I took what they used to call "A.P." (advanced placement)
college-level physics and calculus in 10th grade (only...aack, 35 years
ago). Granted, I've forgotten way more than I'll ever remember, but I have
quite adequate math skills and "inclinations" TYVM. Whatever you do,
however, don't let these facts interfere with your dishonest and downright
silly propaganda campaign.

HAND. BS

Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:24:11
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:05:16 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:38:54 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> Yes, my calculator only allows 8 digits;
>>> and yes I used it without realizing
>>> that. Yes, it never occurred to me that
>>> the answer was off by a tenth
>>> because it didn't jump up and TELL me
>>> that it didn't accept the last digit;
>>> it just produced a so-called result.
>
>> That's an understandable error. Repeating it in arguing against
>> someone who told you you were wrong is less understandable, and
>> actually funny in a dopey sort of way.
>
>At first, they only /hinted/ that I was wrong by insulting me, IIRC. It
>wasn't for quite a few more posts that someone finally wrote /something/
>that was clear and objective, and I immediately recognized what had happened
>and corrected it.
>
>Now, I'm sure you chose to either ignore or forget that, as it doesn't fit
>your petty, hateful template.

I'm not going to ignore it or forget it -- I'm going to laugh at it.
It sounds like <<Boo hoo, they were insulting me, they've called me a
dope so much that when they said my math was wrong I thought it was
more of the same. Boo hoo. Not my fault -- it's their's. >>.

LOL.

> Yes, John, I took what they used to call "A.P." (advanced placement)
> college-level physics and calculus in 10th grade (only...aack, 35 years
> ago).

LOL. So you could do math once. Great. Does that give you the ego to
ignore corrections?

>Granted, I've forgotten way more than I'll ever remember,

Ahhh, this is progress. Some self-awareness of weaknesses.

> but I have
> quite adequate math skills and "inclinations"

Oops, you're backsliding now. LOL.

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to make my
> LOLs LOL and not just LOL?

LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:34:00
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to make my
>> LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>
>LOL

I never wrote the text you quote above.

JT

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

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
>>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>
>> LOL
>
> I never wrote the text you quote above.

Wah. LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:37:23
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
>>>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
>
>Wah. LOL

If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.

JT

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:33:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
>>>>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>
>>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
>>
>> Wah. LOL
>
> If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.

Lighten up, Frances.

You ascribe false stuff to me all the time -- either directly stating it or
by dishonest trimming.

Get a frigging clue.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 20:48:20
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:33:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
>>>>>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
>>>
>>> Wah. LOL
>>
>> If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.
>
>Lighten up, Frances.

Don't do it again.

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:37:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:33:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:24:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:18:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me
>>>>>>> to make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> I never wrote the text you quote above.
>>>>
>>>> Wah. LOL
>>>
>>> If you fake quotes from me intentionally again, I'll tell your ISP.
>>
>> Lighten up, Frances.
>
> Don't do it again.\

You first.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:40:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:

> You first.

BTW, did you at least pick up ("learn") about LOLs like you did (amazingly
enough) about sigs?

If you don't put a----- oh, forget it.

I've got a better idea; I'll tell you when you reply.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 21:01:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:40:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> You first.
>
>BTW, did you at least pick up ("learn") about LOLs like you did (amazingly
>enough) about sigs?

I don't understand what you mean.

>If you don't put a----- oh, forget it.

I don't understand what you mean.

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

Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:59:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:40:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> You first.
>>
>> BTW, did you at least pick up ("learn") about LOLs like you did
>> (amazingly enough) about sigs?
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

There's a way to make 'em animated (for people like me who use QuoteFix at
least); you keep doing something that just makes it show up as LOL. (As
opposed to LOL .)

>> If you don't put a----- oh, forget it.
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

Aw, rats, you snipped the other part.

I'll wait.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:20:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Bill Sornson wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> Now that I learned to do a sig properly, will someone teach me to
>> make my LOLs LOL and not just LOL?
>
> LOL

Ooop. A LOL with a ? will still LOL while a LOL with a . won't.

LOL. See? LOL? LOL

Date: 07 Sep 2006 12:27:07
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:29:35 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:24:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>{8-9 annoying sig lines -- /LAME/ -- snipped}
>
>You can count to eight or nine, presumably without a calculator. Good
>going. LOL.
>

Ozark had trouble getting to two, when it was quote ks - and Bill
backed him up. Starr says that one instance makes population studies
"innacurate".

p.s. the first two are now on record as being pro-MHL. Hmmm, is there
a connection between innumeracy and being frightened of cycling?

Date: 07 Sep 2006 13:40:55
From: Jeff Starr
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:27:07 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:29:35 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:24:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>{8-9 annoying sig lines -- /LAME/ -- snipped}
>>
>>You can count to eight or nine, presumably without a calculator. Good
>>going. LOL.
>>
>
>
>Ozark had trouble getting to two, when it was quote ks - and Bill
>backed him up. Starr says that one instance makes population studies
>"innacurate".
>
>p.s. the first two are now on record as being pro-MHL. Hmmm, is there
>a connection between innumeracy and being frightened of cycling?

Once again, take something out of context, and then try to make some
ridiculus point.

In your weasel way - "and being frightened of cycling"
Cite please!
Where have any of us said we are frightened of cycling?

Bill, Ozark, and I have really gotten to you, we really bring out the
weasel in you.
I don't have time to point out all the reasons why you are full of
shit. I'm going riding. Oh, I'll be wearing my Giro Pneumo helmet and
my Pearl Izumi Race gloves.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Date: 06 Sep 2006 03:33:58
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:htiLg.13399$S_5.7321@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
>> riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the caution
>> of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that caution fails.
>
> Funny (not) you should mention that. My buddy Ken just got doored at the
> end of our ride on Sunday afternoon. (Cops, paramedics, taped to board
> like Gumby, E.R., whole works). Huge welt/bruise on front right chest;
> arm and back jacked up. (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet;
> would have lost some scalp for sure.) Picked him up later that evening;
> he could barely move.
>
> He ended up out in the middle of the road and couldn't get up; very lucky
> no cars were coming up behind him.
>
I just missed seeing a dooring occuring in front of me (I was checking
traffic left and right at a four way stop and missed it). Surprisingly, the
guy was all right, just bruised. The top tube of the bike was badly bent and
had obviously taken a direct hit from the side of the car door. The car
door was jammed and would not close.

For those who care: he was wearing a helmet, but didn't remember hitting his
head and the helmet didn't show any impact damage.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 12:12:20
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:33:58 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>>
>I just missed seeing a dooring occuring in front of me (I was checking
>traffic left and right at a four way stop and missed it). Surprisingly, the
>guy was all right, just bruised. The top tube of the bike was badly bent and
>had obviously taken a direct hit from the side of the car door. The car
>door was jammed and would not close.
>
>For those who care: he was wearing a helmet, but didn't remember hitting his
>head and the helmet didn't show any impact damage.
>

Cue Sorni/Ozark/Starr: "The helmet saved his life."

Date: 06 Sep 2006 13:51:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:33:58 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
> <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>> For those who care: he was wearing a helmet, but didn't remember
>> hitting his head and the helmet didn't show any impact damage.

> Cue Sorni/Ozark/Starr: "The helmet saved his life."

Lying asswipe: find ONE quote from me saying that kind of thing.

I'll
wait.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Didn't think so.

Weasel.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:13:14
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:htiLg.13399$S_5.7321@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not a big fan of bells but they aren't dangerous. Dangerous is
>>> riding in the door zone and relying on your reaction time, the
>>> caution of parked motorists, and their reaction time when that
>>> caution fails.
>>
>> Funny (not) you should mention that. My buddy Ken just got doored
>> at the end of our ride on Sunday afternoon. (Cops, paramedics,
>> taped to board like Gumby, E.R., whole works). Huge welt/bruise on
>> front right chest; arm and back jacked up. (And yes, he got a big
>> wide scrape on his helmet; would have lost some scalp for sure.) Picked
>> him up later that evening; he could barely move.
>>
>> He ended up out in the middle of the road and couldn't get up; very
>> lucky no cars were coming up behind him.
>>
> I just missed seeing a dooring occuring in front of me (I was checking
> traffic left and right at a four way stop and missed it).

I didn't see this one, either. Looked back and saw "something in the road".
Looked closer at it was my friend! Scary.

> Surprisingly, the guy was all right, just bruised. The top tube of
> the bike was badly bent and had obviously taken a direct hit from the
> side of the car door. The car door was jammed and would not close.

Good! Hope there was a police report at least? He deserves to be made
whole -- body and bike.

> For those who care: he was wearing a helmet, but didn't remember
> hitting his head and the helmet didn't show any impact damage.

Dooring alone /usually/ doesn't involve the head, unless of course the
victim falls without being able to prepare at all (which is common -- and
probably prevents more than a few broken collar bones!).

I think my guy was out of it for a few seconds, as he doesn't even remember
falling -- only being down and thinking "I'll just lay here a while" even
though he knew he was in the road.

Careful out there!

Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:37:13
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Better than bells

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:_FtLg.298$xg7.6@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>> Surprisingly, the guy was all right, just bruised. The top tube of
>> the bike was badly bent and had obviously taken a direct hit from the
>> side of the car door. The car door was jammed and would not close.
>
> Good! Hope there was a police report at least? He deserves to be made
> whole -- body and bike.
>
The police were on their way when I left -- I wasn't a real witness having
not seen the actual impact, and there were two other people who had.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 18:51:14
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

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

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?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:12:05
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >> How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> >> think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> >> they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> >> cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> >> enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
> >
> >The problem is that a MHL can be selectively enforced and used as tool
> >to harrass otherwise law abiding cyclists if an ignorant officer
> >decides he doesn't "approve" of something the cyclist is doing such as
> >taking the lane to defend against an aggressive cager or setting up for
> >a left turn.
> >
> >I am not anti-helmet in any way but I am opposed to any MHL for adults
> >because it will be used to unfairly disenfranchise cyclists.
>
> Well said.
>
> It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
> concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
> big deal.
>

I'm not "denouncing concerns", I'm pointing out the foolishness of
jtaylor's paranoid rantings re: being "forced" to wear helmets. In the
big picture, I don't see overworked, underfunded local police
departments stopping and citing cyclists regarding helmets whilst not
having the wherewithal to pick up people with open arrest warrants.
YMMV, and so be it.

> Also in response to Ozark, my best friend was stopped by a cop for
> riding w/o a helmet within the last two months. Police enforce all
> sorts of things that probably shouldn't be priorities.
>
>

Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
did he just get a little lecture?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 23:49:54
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0700, "amakyonin" <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>> It's bizarre that Ozark, who claims to care about rights, denounce
>> concerns over laws by claiming they won't be enforced so they're no
>> big deal.
>>
>
>I'm not "denouncing concerns", I'm pointing out the foolishness of
>jtaylor's paranoid rantings re: being "forced" to wear helmets.

Laws are laws. That you think that you'll be allright if you ignore
them may work for you, but when it does not, please do not try to tell
us that you claimed to be against them but did nothing to oppose their
passage.

That would be hypocritical, and we know how you dislike this aspect of
the pro-helmet-zealot being exposed in you.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:13:09
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On 6 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

>Did they put the cuffs on him? Throw him in the slammer? Make him post
>bond? Bind him over for a hearing? Are they going to revoke his bicycle
>license? Or did they just write a ticket and send him on his way? Or
>did he just get a little lecture?

The latter two I think.

You think that's not important? Not a big deal? Lame.

JT

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

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
{context???}

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

> 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.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:50:40
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 18:30:15 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep 2006 11:33:55 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >A) The California law only applies to children
> >>
> >> 10 million of them. So far.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So far. California enacted the very first MHL ever, continues to
> >> >> expand the people and circumstances where wearing one is mandatory,
> >> >> and now requires a greater number of its residents to wear helmets
> >> >> while cycling than any other state in the US.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >B) Apparently, enforcement is so non-existant that many California
> >> >> >cyclists are unaware that the law even exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> So far. If people who claim to be anti-MHL do nothing, they cannot
> >> >> complain when they find themselves forced to wear a foam hat.
> >> >
> >> >How ever are they going to "force" you to wear a helmet? Do you really
> >> >think that the state and local police, underfunded and undermanned as
> >> >they are, are going to start pulling cyclists over with their squad
> >> >cars? Do you think the taxpayers will endure a tax increase to fund
> >> >enforcement of such a silly and obscure law? Are you serious?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> What
> >> >> have you done about MHL's? Anything?
> >> >
> >> >When there is an *adult* MHL proposed in an area where I have a vote, I
> >> >will oppose it.
> >>
> >> So, MHL's are ok with you as long as they don't apply to you?
> >
> >At this point, I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and
> >truly enforced, with time in the slammer for second time offenders.
>
> What a selfish dick you are. Pretend to care about liberty but you
> really don't. Lame.
>

Whoosh!

Date: 06 Sep 2006 14:57:26
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 12:55:11 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >And I really don't see the police stopping cyclists for violation of a
> >hypothetical MHL when many departments are too undermanned to pick up
> >people with open arrest warrants. YMMV.
>
> Try it. Next time you are in a place with an MHL ride by cops without
> a helmet.
>

I see it all the time. There is a child MHL here, few children wear
helmets and I see local police pass by the kids all the time.

Interestingly, adult helmet use, sans an MHL, is very high in this
area.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:12:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>{context???}
>
>>> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
>>> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>
>> 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
****************************

Date: 06 Sep 2006 01:20:42
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:12:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>{context???}
>>
>>>> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
>>>> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>>
>>> 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.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 23:23:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote (/in
> part/):
{where's the rest of what I wrote?!?)

>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote: {context???}

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

>>> 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?

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.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:50:12
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:23:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
>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
****************************

Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:47:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:23:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> 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

Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:55:53
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:47:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:23:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> 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
****************************

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:39:57
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:23:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote (/in
>> part/):
>{where's the rest of what I wrote?!?)
>
>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:28:45 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote: {context???}
>
>>>>> (And yes, he got a big wide scrape on his helmet; would
>>>>> have lost some scalp for sure.)
>
>>>> 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?
>
>You deleted my answer. (Shocking! LOL )

You didn't answer any of his questions.

>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
****************************

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:21:16
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Better than bells

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

Date: 05 Sep 2006 09:13:20
From:
Subject: Re: Better than bells

Pat Lamb wrote:
> The human voice: the ultimate alert device.
>
> The other night I was heading home at dusk when I came upon a string of
> 8-10 Canada geese wandering across the road. There was almost no
> traffic, and the geese were blocking three of five lanes, and heading
> for my lane.
>
> What to do? Hitting one would trump most squirrel stories, but I really
> didn't want to do that. I've seen the geese in this area ignore car
> horns, squealing tires, people shouting, etc.
>
> After a few moments thought, I let out my best imitation dog howl. All
> the geese looked at me. The lead goose eyed me suspiciously, as though
> I didn't LOOK like a free-running dog, but decided to turn around
> anyway. It slowly waddled back until it almost walked into goose #2,
> who decided to turn around then, and the ripple effect was back to the
> third and fourth geese before I passed them.
>
> It was almost as much fun as yelling "beep-beep" at a couple kids last
> week -- one of them asked me as I passed, "Do you have a horn on that bike?"
>
> Pat

we have a lot of idiots here asking wheres your bell ? when I was a
courier downtown but in an emergency I want my reflexes to hit my
brakes and yell at the person not ringing a stupid bell; once going
through stopped traffic I had someone pop a car door on me, I was able
to yell close the door in time; I was telling a friend of mine who
recounted he was in a similar situation and when he rang his bell the
person just looked where the sound came from and he slamed into the
door- bells are dangerous