BMC: team for the future

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 11 May 2007 16:35:49
From: bar
Subject: BMC: team for the future

Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
notwithstanding).

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news

The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
worried:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_camp07/IMG_7780

Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
they can set a better example for the young guns than that.

Date: 13 May 2007 17:32:09
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 13, 6:38 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "billyroll" <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179032724.756688.321720@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
> > trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
> > bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
>
> Try reading something for a change. Who knows, even a blithering idiot can
> learn something sometimes.
>
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html

Kunich, you dumbass. You're too much fun. I didn't question your
facts. I didn't question your point of view. Facts are facts, as
proven by science and research. You're free to your opinion in any
situation, no matter how stupid it may be. Yet you continue to avoid
my question. Did you write the Wikipedia entry or plagarize it?
-B

Date: 14 May 2007 05:24:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"billyroll" <billybeane31@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179102729.120613.152370@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 13, 6:38 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "billyroll" <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1179032724.756688.321720@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
>> > trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
>> > bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
>>
>> Try reading something for a change. Who knows, even a blithering idiot
>> can
>> learn something sometimes.
>>
>> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html
>
> Kunich, you dumbass. You're too much fun. I didn't question your
> facts.

You aren't bright enough to question the facts of a wino laying in the
gutter. Remember - you've already told us that you have no problem lying to
your children to make them believe the way you believe.

> I didn't question your point of view. Facts are facts, as
> proven by science and research. You're free to your opinion in any
> situation, no matter how stupid it may be. Yet you continue to avoid
> my question. Did you write the Wikipedia entry or plagarize it?

You really are funny. It just so happens that right after I wrote that here,
I read almost the exact same posting from Dorre' Robinson on another group.
You see, most people understand that the FACTS are the FACTS.

I neither wrote the Wikipedia entry or ever even read it. Why? I've studied
the subject since 1969 when I was the Safety Director of the American
Federation of Motorcylists.

I do understand that someone as focused on being a liar, as you've admitted
to, finds it hard to believe that thousands of people could have exactly the
same story simply because it's true. But then that's why you've managed to
retain so much respect here.

Date: 14 May 2007 20:57:28
From: WeaselPoopPower
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

YELLING GUY (Tom Kunich)
1. Glad you noted that we have helmets for the same reason we're at war:
Profits.

Date: 13 May 2007 22:33:10
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <doS1i.10661$j63.6434@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "billyroll" <billybeane31@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179102729.120613.152370@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 13, 6:38 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "billyroll" <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1179032724.756688.321720@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
> >> > trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
> >> > bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
> >>
> >> Try reading something for a change. Who knows, even a blithering idiot
> >> can
> >> learn something sometimes.
> >>
> >> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html
> >
> > Kunich, you dumbass. You're too much fun. I didn't question your
> > facts.
>
> You aren't bright enough to question the facts of a wino laying in the
> gutter. Remember - you've already told us that you have no problem lying to
> your children to make them believe the way you believe.

Actually Tom, "billyroll" didn't say anything about kids, the OP did. Apparently
the wino could do a better job of following who says what in such a short thread.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 13 May 2007 12:10:21
From: OMC
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 12, 10:43 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 13, 12:28 am, billyroll <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 9:15 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > TK, I never thought I'd write this, but for your own sake, back away
> > > from the insincere troll!
>
> > > Unless of course, you're enjoying this, in which case, well, you know,
> > > have fun.
>
> > > Try to mention LIVEDRUNK,
>
> > > --
> > > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dumbass - please note that I am not the original helmet troll in this
> > thread. My question was a legitimate one.
>
> > -B
>
> You don't deserve a "Dumbass" because anyone who would restart the
> helmet shit here is either a clueless newb, or a complete idiot.
> Save us all the trouble and google for "helmet" in the group archive.
> When you're done reading that, sometime next spring, get back to us.
> Bill C

Geez.........so much for checking out what is new on RBR.
I'm thinking my laptop is all jacked up and it's keeps pulling up an
old, tiresome threads from my Kunich kill file on helmets.
I feel like Yogi Berra..... "It's like d=E9j=E0 vu all over again."
Give them hell Bill !!!
RBR needs a good colon cleansing flush.
Too much crap sticking around the walls of RBR..........

OMC

Date: 13 May 2007 03:43:28
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

> Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
> trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
> bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
> -B

He's right -- I believe I am responsible for the original helmet
troll, although all I really wanted to accomplish in the original post
is to make fun of moninger and sayers (e.g., farts, tools, etc.).

On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
case where the helmet would protect one's head. For instance, perhaps
after the town-line sprint you happen to get into a scrap with jame
carney or bobby julich--the helmet might serve to deflect some of the
blows in the former case and could be used as an offensive weapon in
the latter.

Date: 17 May 2007 08:06:26
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 16, 10:05 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <ghkm439of5tcuadoq4q1leed4efm3c9...@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 May 2007 11:33:52 -0700, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I've been kicking around the idea
> > >> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
> > >> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
> > >> riding a road bike.
>
> > >just let us know now what your local hospital is so we'll know where
> > >to send flowers ...
>
> > So idiotic: if someone rides w/o a helmet, then they will have a
> > serious injury.
>
> Cue Dr. Smith from "Lost In Space": "We're all going to die!!!!" Whatever.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Offered without comment:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1342&dept_id=433252&newsid=18350420&PAG=461&rfi=9

Date: 13 May 2007 23:10:47
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

in message <1179053008.528552.168150@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, bar
('barbaricia@gmail.com') wrote:

>> Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
>> trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
>> bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
>> -B
>
> He's right -- I believe I am responsible for the original helmet
> troll, although all I really wanted to accomplish in the original post
> is to make fun of moninger and sayers (e.g., farts, tools, etc.).
>
> On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
> while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
> case where the helmet would protect one's head. For instance, perhaps
> after the town-line sprint you happen to get into a scrap with jame
> carney or bobby julich--the helmet might serve to deflect some of the
> blows in the former case and could be used as an offensive weapon in
> the latter.

Yup. You should also wear a St Christopher medal because it might just stop
a bullet, and carry a lucky rabbits foot to gnaw on if you accidentally
get stranded on a desert island with no food. Oh, and a sprig of white
heather is very useful for deflecting falling meteorites.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

Date: 13 May 2007 12:33:08
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article
<1179053008.528552.168150@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
> > trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
> > bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
> > -B
>
> He's right -- I believe I am responsible for the original helmet
> troll, although all I really wanted to accomplish in the original post
> is to make fun of moninger and sayers (e.g., farts, tools, etc.).
>
> On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
> while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
> case where the helmet would protect one's head. For instance, perhaps
> after the town-line sprint you happen to get into a scrap with jame
> carney or bobby julich--the helmet might serve to deflect some of the
> blows in the former case and could be used as an offensive weapon in
> the latter.

It's Salvatore Commesso you need to watch out for, particularly as
he has been sworn into the Russian Mafia.

--
Michael Press

Date: 13 May 2007 08:40:39
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On 13 May 2007 03:43:28 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>> Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
>> trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
>> bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
>> -B
>
>He's right -- I believe I am responsible for the original helmet
>troll, although all I really wanted to accomplish in the original post
>is to make fun of moninger and sayers (e.g., farts, tools, etc.).

Why make fun of the only two who have enough confidence in their riding to go
bare headed as everyone else had done for 110 years until you morons showed up
with your pathetic little fears.

>On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
>while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
>case where the helmet would protect one's head.

So it can collect mass quantities of unevaporated sweat to dump into your eyes
when the wind changes or you touch the brakes.

>For instance, perhaps
>after the town-line sprint you happen to get into a scrap with jame
>carney or bobby julich--the helmet might serve to deflect some of the
>blows in the former case and could be used as an offensive weapon in
>the latter.

Okay, those are valid. Never mind.

Ron

Date: 13 May 2007 13:45:31
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:7l1e43p92g29lquenv2mrqcsbn13429mtv@4ax.com...
> On 13 May 2007 03:43:28 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
>>> trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
>>> bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
>>> -B
>>
>>He's right -- I believe I am responsible for the original helmet
>>troll, although all I really wanted to accomplish in the original post
>>is to make fun of moninger and sayers (e.g., farts, tools, etc.).
>
> Why make fun of the only two who have enough confidence in their riding to
> go
> bare headed as everyone else had done for 110 years until you morons
> showed up
> with your pathetic little fears.

These guys don't have the ability to ride and think at the same time. So
they believe that falling down or crashing is a normal thing to anyone
riding a bicycle.

>>On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
>>while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
>>case where the helmet would protect one's head.
>
> So it can collect mass quantities of unevaporated sweat to dump into your
> eyes
> when the wind changes or you touch the brakes.

Well, can't argue with that. Specialized sponsored a study that was designed
to show that helmets didn't slow you up because of the heat retained. For
the test they put these people in a wind tunnel so that they had high speed
air across the helmet and lo and behold but there was no change in
performance with and without a helmet. However, the fan failed on one set of
runs so they ran the tests anyway and there was a 20%-30% drop in
performance among all of the test subjects. Strangely enough the Summary
showed that helmets have no effect on power output. But then climbing at low
speed never happens to bicyclists does it?

The thing that triggered me off on this is that stupid claim that everyone
should worry about the sort of presentation they make for "children". This
moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
their best interests. Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?

Date: 13 May 2007 07:15:03
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On 13 May 2007 03:43:28 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

>On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
>while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
>case where the helmet would protect one's head.

OK, I'll bite.

I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet while driving.
After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a case where a
helmet would protect one's head.

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

Date: 13 May 2007 13:37:10
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message
news:pnsd43pk1tmms6081dirc6r1a80gh8s3ga@4ax.com...
> On 13 May 2007 03:43:28 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet
>>while riding. After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a
>>case where the helmet would protect one's head.
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet while driving.
> After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a case where a
> helmet would protect one's head.
>
> It's on...

Precisely - what's more, pedestrians have fatal accidents about 5 times as
often. So will these helmet promoters suggest that all pedestrians wear
"safety helmets" as well?

Date: 13 May 2007 19:57:30
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> OK, I'll bite.
>>
>> I do believe it's only prudent to strap on a helmet while driving.
>> After all, what's the harm, and there might indeed be a case where a
>> helmet would protect one's head.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Precisely - what's more, pedestrians have fatal accidents about 5 times as
> often. So will these helmet promoters suggest that all pedestrians wear
> "safety helmets" as well?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002569751_horsesex19m.html

Date: 12 May 2007 22:05:24
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 12, 9:43 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On May 13, 12:28 am, billyroll <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 9:15 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > > TK, I never thought I'd write this, but for your own sake, back away
> > > from the insincere troll!
>
> > > Unless of course, you're enjoying this, in which case, well, you know,
> > > have fun.
>
> > > Try to mention LIVEDRUNK,
>
> > > --
> > > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dumbass - please note that I am not the original helmet troll in this
> > thread. My question was a legitimate one.
>
> > -B
>
> You don't deserve a "Dumbass" because anyone who would restart the
> helmet shit here is either a clueless newb, or a complete idiot.
> Save us all the trouble and google for "helmet" in the group archive.
> When you're done reading that, sometime next spring, get back to us.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.
-B

Date: 13 May 2007 13:38:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"billyroll" <billybeane31@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179032724.756688.321720@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dammit. You're all dumbasses. Read the thread. I did no helmet
> trolling. I merely called out Kunich on his plagarism. Christ, you
> bastards. Read the thread before you post, jackasses.

Try reading something for a change. Who knows, even a blithering idiot can
learn something sometimes.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html

Date: 12 May 2007 21:43:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 13, 12:28 am, billyroll <billybean...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 12, 9:15 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TK, I never thought I'd write this, but for your own sake, back away
> > from the insincere troll!
>
> > Unless of course, you're enjoying this, in which case, well, you know,
> > have fun.
>
> > Try to mention LIVEDRUNK,
>
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dumbass - please note that I am not the original helmet troll in this
> thread. My question was a legitimate one.
>
> -B

You don't deserve a "Dumbass" because anyone who would restart the
helmet shit here is either a clueless newb, or a complete idiot.
Save us all the trouble and google for "helmet" in the group archive.
When you're done reading that, sometime next spring, get back to us.
Bill C

Date: 12 May 2007 21:28:24
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 12, 9:15 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:

>
> TK, I never thought I'd write this, but for your own sake, back away
> from the insincere troll!
>
> Unless of course, you're enjoying this, in which case, well, you know,
> have fun.
>
> Try to mention LIVEDRUNK,
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dumbass - please note that I am not the original helmet troll in this
thread. My question was a legitimate one.

-B

Date: 12 May 2007 21:06:18
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 12, 9:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "billyroll" <billybean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179026579.506989.210600@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
>
> > Tommy Boy - did you write the Wikipedia entry or merely plagarize it?
> > If you wrote it, I give it no creedance. If you plagarized it, I give
> > your post no creedance. Even highschoolers know that Wikipedia is not
> > a solid source.
>
> On your smartest day an total idiot could make you look dumb. If you don't
> understand that many people understand the issues behind helmets you're even
> stupider than I give you credit for.
>
> Here's a hint - if you can't argue the issues, don't try to make light of
> them by demonstrating your own ignorance.

So.... did you write it or plagarize it?

-B

Date: 12 May 2007 20:22:59
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 12, 7:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> A few notes on helmet standards and injuries:
>
> Firstly a bit of history - The Snell Memorial Foundation was started because
> of the death of a driver in a SCCA sports car race.
>
> Bell Helmet Company was founded and they discovered that the motorcycle
> crowd was a more lucritive audience for the products. Around 1988 or so,
> Bell had a legal opinion written that essentially said that helmets had no
> effect on motorcycle deaths and injuries and so if they continued to market
> to motorcyclist who were mostly young foolish individuals that Bell could
> expect to be sued out of business for contributing to reckless driving of
> motorcyclists.
>
> Bell twigged that a helmet would be just as easily marketed to bicyclists, a
> sport that was starting to grow again after years of hibernation. Since
> serious bicyclists tend to be older individuals they would be a great deal
> less likely to have outraged parents suing on their behalf. Moreover, since
> serious and fatal injuries among bicyclists were some 400 times less common
> per capita, the chance of someone blaming a helmet for increasing the
> reckless behavior of the wearer would be rather small.
>
> Bell used the standards set by the Snell Memorial Foundation. Let's say
> this - although Bell and Snell BOTH know that bicycle helmets have a faulty
> standard and are incapable of dealing with anything beyond a very minor blow
> to the helmet, they both do an excellent job at what they do - Snell has
> designed the very highest standard that is possible to obtain and Bell has
> designed the very highest quality helmets to test to and maintain that
> standard.
>
> The problem is that the standard is totally inadequate.
>
> For instance - effectively the test for impact is for a fallover. That is,
> dropping your head some 6 feet and striking the ground. If you fall over at
> a stop you acheive the maximum impact that a helmet could possibly be
> designed for.
>
> And the definitions for maximum impact that the standard sets is for a large
> strong man whose skull can (just) withstand a 300 gee decelerative force
> without breaking. Women and children as well as a significant proportion of
> men, cannot withstand such a force without fatal decelerative skull damage.
> Significantly - even this standard would leave a large strong man in a coma.
>
> What's more - this is a full on straight contact. In real life the odd shape
> of a "racing" helmet causes the head to twist on impact causing rotational
> forces. The brain is injured fatally by rotational forces a small percentage
> of those the helmet is tested to withstand.
>
> Joe Moron wears a helmet, falls over, sticks out his hand and using his
> muscles reduces the impact of his FACE to the ground to the point where he
> recieves a bloody nose, scraps on his chin and a cut on his forehead from
> the impact of the edge of the foam to his head. He then describes to
> everyone how his life was saved by his helmet.
>
> What he doesn't know is that Bell, in an effort to make helmets acceptable
> to athletes have put so many vents in them that the foam had to be
> significantly hardened. Interestingly, since the headform for the Snell
> testing is metal, increasing the strength of the foam had no effect on the
> acceptability of the helmet for the testing purposes. It still passes the
> Snell standards.
>
> However, because the foam now covers a much smaller area of the skull, local
> pressures on a real skull can greatly exceed the forces necessary to break a
> skull even within the range of the testing standards.
>
> Not that it really matters of course since bicycle accidents of the sort
> that would kill someone from an unassisted fall are almost nonexistant.
>
> In fact - some 90+% of all serious and fatal accidents to bicyclists in the
> USA involved collisions with motor vehicles with forces hundreds of times
> larger than any helmet could possibly mitigate. Of the remaining 10% or
> less - some 60 deaths a year across the USA - many of them are so obviously
> asked for (downhillers hitting 100 mph through rocks) that no one has had
> the temerity to try a lawsuit.
>
> Moreover, although there is no research to back it up, there is a high
> probability that helmets probably do reduce the severity of minor injuries.
> Minor injuries are those that do not require at least an overnight stay in
> the hospital. And since these sorts of injuries are fairly common it is
> probably in society's interest to retain helmets manufacturers in the USA
> and to promote the use of these helmets as somewhat effective.
>
> The point of all this is that while helmets probably do some good, promoting
> them as saving lives or as some sort of cureall for childrens injuries is
> actively working against cycling.
>
> "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:bbmhh4-tfn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Tommy Boy - did you write the Wikipedia entry or merely plagarize it?
If you wrote it, I give it no creedance. If you plagarized it, I give
your post no creedance. Even highschoolers know that Wikipedia is not
a solid source.

-B

Date: 13 May 2007 04:00:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"billyroll" <billybeane31@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179026579.506989.210600@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
>
> Tommy Boy - did you write the Wikipedia entry or merely plagarize it?
> If you wrote it, I give it no creedance. If you plagarized it, I give
> your post no creedance. Even highschoolers know that Wikipedia is not
> a solid source.

On your smartest day an total idiot could make you look dumb. If you don't
understand that many people understand the issues behind helmets you're even
stupider than I give you credit for.

Here's a hint - if you can't argue the issues, don't try to make light of
them by demonstrating your own ignorance.

Date: 13 May 2007 04:15:35
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <93w1i.14557$3P3.4541@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "billyroll" <billybeane31@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179026579.506989.210600@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
> >
> > Tommy Boy - did you write the Wikipedia entry or merely plagarize it?
> > If you wrote it, I give it no creedance. If you plagarized it, I give
> > your post no creedance. Even highschoolers know that Wikipedia is not
> > a solid source.
>
> On your smartest day an total idiot could make you look dumb. If you don't
> understand that many people understand the issues behind helmets you're even
> stupider than I give you credit for.
>
> Here's a hint - if you can't argue the issues, don't try to make light of
> them by demonstrating your own ignorance.

TK, I never thought I'd write this, but for your own sake, back away
from the insincere troll!

Unless of course, you're enjoying this, in which case, well, you know,
have fun.

Try to mention LIVEDRUNK,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 12 May 2007 21:57:46
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

in message <1178926549.092815.283470@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, bar
('barbaricia@gmail.com') wrote:

> Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
> moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
> they can set a better example for the young guns than that.

Oh, for heaven's sake don't be silly.

Cycling is less than two thirds as dangerous as walking, and no-one wears a
helmet when walking. On average a cyclist has one fatal accident for every
twenty one and a half million miles, or eight hundred and sixty three
complete circumnavigations of the earth. Cycling helmets are rated to
provide protection in falls up to 24Km/h. Fabio Casartelli was descending
at 100Km/h when he crashed and was killed. The force of impact scales with
the square of the speed, so Casartelli's fall exceeded the protective
specification of a bicycle helmet by a factor of sixteen times. Also - as
is typical in such cases - Casartelli's fatal injuries were not to the top
of his head, but to the side and front.

Quick summary: you'll never need it, and if you did ever need it it
wouldn't work.

Addendum: when I crashed while descending at 75Km/h, I was wearing a cotton
cap. Now, OK, if I'd hit my head in that crash I would not be writing
this. But I didn't (I had a slight graze on the temple, some lacerations
to my legs, and a broken back, but...) What happens in a high speed crash
is a matter of luck, but getting killed isn't inevitable and it isn't even
very likely.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

Date: 13 May 2007 02:41:36
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

A few notes on helmet standards and injuries:

Firstly a bit of history - The Snell Memorial Foundation was started because
of the death of a driver in a SCCA sports car race.

Bell Helmet Company was founded and they discovered that the motorcycle
crowd was a more lucritive audience for the products. Around 1988 or so,
Bell had a legal opinion written that essentially said that helmets had no
effect on motorcycle deaths and injuries and so if they continued to market
to motorcyclist who were mostly young foolish individuals that Bell could
expect to be sued out of business for contributing to reckless driving of
motorcyclists.

Bell twigged that a helmet would be just as easily marketed to bicyclists, a
sport that was starting to grow again after years of hibernation. Since
serious bicyclists tend to be older individuals they would be a great deal
less likely to have outraged parents suing on their behalf. Moreover, since
serious and fatal injuries among bicyclists were some 400 times less common
per capita, the chance of someone blaming a helmet for increasing the
reckless behavior of the wearer would be rather small.

Bell used the standards set by the Snell Memorial Foundation. Let's say
this - although Bell and Snell BOTH know that bicycle helmets have a faulty
standard and are incapable of dealing with anything beyond a very minor blow
to the helmet, they both do an excellent job at what they do - Snell has
designed the very highest standard that is possible to obtain and Bell has
designed the very highest quality helmets to test to and maintain that
standard.

The problem is that the standard is totally inadequate.

For instance - effectively the test for impact is for a fallover. That is,
dropping your head some 6 feet and striking the ground. If you fall over at
a stop you acheive the maximum impact that a helmet could possibly be
designed for.

And the definitions for maximum impact that the standard sets is for a large
strong man whose skull can (just) withstand a 300 gee decelerative force
without breaking. Women and children as well as a significant proportion of
men, cannot withstand such a force without fatal decelerative skull damage.
Significantly - even this standard would leave a large strong man in a coma.

What's more - this is a full on straight contact. In real life the odd shape
of a "racing" helmet causes the head to twist on impact causing rotational
forces. The brain is injured fatally by rotational forces a small percentage
of those the helmet is tested to withstand.

Joe Moron wears a helmet, falls over, sticks out his hand and using his
muscles reduces the impact of his FACE to the ground to the point where he
recieves a bloody nose, scraps on his chin and a cut on his forehead from
the impact of the edge of the foam to his head. He then describes to
everyone how his life was saved by his helmet.

What he doesn't know is that Bell, in an effort to make helmets acceptable
to athletes have put so many vents in them that the foam had to be
significantly hardened. Interestingly, since the headform for the Snell
testing is metal, increasing the strength of the foam had no effect on the
acceptability of the helmet for the testing purposes. It still passes the
Snell standards.

However, because the foam now covers a much smaller area of the skull, local
pressures on a real skull can greatly exceed the forces necessary to break a
skull even within the range of the testing standards.

Not that it really matters of course since bicycle accidents of the sort
that would kill someone from an unassisted fall are almost nonexistant.

In fact - some 90+% of all serious and fatal accidents to bicyclists in the
USA involved collisions with motor vehicles with forces hundreds of times
larger than any helmet could possibly mitigate. Of the remaining 10% or
less - some 60 deaths a year across the USA - many of them are so obviously
asked for (downhillers hitting 100 mph through rocks) that no one has had
the temerity to try a lawsuit.

Moreover, although there is no research to back it up, there is a high
probability that helmets probably do reduce the severity of minor injuries.
Minor injuries are those that do not require at least an overnight stay in
the hospital. And since these sorts of injuries are fairly common it is
probably in society's interest to retain helmets manufacturers in the USA
and to promote the use of these helmets as somewhat effective.

The point of all this is that while helmets probably do some good, promoting
them as saving lives or as some sort of cureall for childrens injuries is
actively working against cycling.

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:bbmhh4-tfn.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <1178926549.092815.283470@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bar
> ('barbaricia@gmail.com') wrote:
>
>> Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
>> moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
>> they can set a better example for the young guns than that.
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake don't be silly.
>
> Cycling is less than two thirds as dangerous as walking, and no-one wears
> a
> helmet when walking. On average a cyclist has one fatal accident for every
> twenty one and a half million miles, or eight hundred and sixty three
> complete circumnavigations of the earth. Cycling helmets are rated to
> provide protection in falls up to 24Km/h. Fabio Casartelli was descending
> at 100Km/h when he crashed and was killed. The force of impact scales with
> the square of the speed, so Casartelli's fall exceeded the protective
> specification of a bicycle helmet by a factor of sixteen times. Also - as
> is typical in such cases - Casartelli's fatal injuries were not to the top
> of his head, but to the side and front.
>
> Quick summary: you'll never need it, and if you did ever need it it
> wouldn't work.
>
> Addendum: when I crashed while descending at 75Km/h, I was wearing a
> cotton
> cap. Now, OK, if I'd hit my head in that crash I would not be writing
> this. But I didn't (I had a slight graze on the temple, some lacerations
> to my legs, and a broken back, but...) What happens in a high speed crash
> is a matter of luck, but getting killed isn't inevitable and it isn't even
> very likely.
>
> --
> simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
> ;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
> ;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

Date: 16 May 2007 14:16:35
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On May 13, 11:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:d8fkh4-ae5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
> > > in message <1179079396.067818.96...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bar
> > > ('barbari...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> > >>> This
> > >>> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
> > >>> their best interests.
>
> > >> Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> > >> all the time.
>
> > >>> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
> > >>> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?
>
> > >> I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
> > >> disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
> > >> slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
> > >> else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
> > >> even encourage) it.
>
> > > Other way round. They're flat, lazy slobs who play xbox and munch fritos
> > > because they've been persuaded by their lying parents that getting
> > > outdoors on their bikes is too dangerous, and requires you to wear too
> > > much uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncool 'safety' equipment.
>
> > Indeed. I'll repeat a perfect example that I witnessed myself. There are two
> > schools past which I used to cycle every day. One a Jr. High and the other a
> > Grade School. The front of these schools used to be completely covered with
> > bicycles. Every path had bike racks along them and not only were all the
> > racks completely full but bikes were stacked against the buildings.
>
> > California passed a helmet law and the very DAY it came into effect the
> > front of the schools had less than a dozen bikes and soon enough not even
> > those. The racks were removed and now the front of those schools is a mass
> > of SUV's every morning and afternoon.
>
> > Dumhb bastards could see what they've done but they're so convinced they're
> > right that they don't care who is harmed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting. We used to enforce the helmet law on our daughters when
> they were younger. They didn't care back then. Now they are 14 and
> 11 and we don't enforce the helmety law. Would I like it if they put
> them on? Sure. But, if we made them wear their helmets, they for
> sure, without a doubt, would never get on their bikes.

why not get them started racing in the junior cats, where helmets are
required and everyone wears one (except of course the moninger and
sayers children)?

> I'd rather
> have them ride without a helmet than not ride at all. I never wore a
> helmet when I rode my bike as a kid and I was far more reckless back
> then than I am now on my road bike. I've been kicking around the idea
> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
> riding a road bike.

be sure to let us know the address of your local hospital so we'll
know where to send flowers ...

Date: 16 May 2007 12:14:27
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting. We used to enforce the helmet law on our daughters when
> they were younger. They didn't care back then. Now they are 14 and
> 11 and we don't enforce the helmety law. Would I like it if they put
> them on? Sure. But, if we made them wear their helmets, they for
> sure, without a doubt, would never get on their bikes. I'd rather
> have them ride without a helmet than not ride at all. I never wore a
> helmet when I rode my bike as a kid and I was far more reckless back
> then than I am now on my road bike. I've been kicking around the idea
> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
> riding a road bike.
> --
> Marty- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here in the wonderful nanny state of Massachusetts if your kid
happened to get hurt while riding a bike without a helmet it's
guaranteed, and mandated, that the hospital or doctor report it to the
Dept. of Social Services. You be looking at child endangerment charges
and they are incredibly agressive.
We got rid of Romney, but replaced him with something much worse.
They are really trying to expand the governments reach into our daily
lives in a State that already is incredibly invasive.
DSS is a nightmare for parents here who actually care, so no helmet,
no ride. All it takes is one, anonymous even, phone call from a
teacher, neighbor, social worker, cop, or anyone else and you are in a
world of shit.
Bill C

Date: 16 May 2007 11:33:52
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On May 13, 11:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:d8fkh4-ae5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
> > > in message <1179079396.067818.96...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bar
> > > ('barbari...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> > >>> This
> > >>> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
> > >>> their best interests.
>
> > >> Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> > >> all the time.
>
> > >>> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
> > >>> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?
>
> > >> I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
> > >> disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
> > >> slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
> > >> else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
> > >> even encourage) it.
>
> > > Other way round. They're flat, lazy slobs who play xbox and munch fritos
> > > because they've been persuaded by their lying parents that getting
> > > outdoors on their bikes is too dangerous, and requires you to wear too
> > > much uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncool 'safety' equipment.
>
> > Indeed. I'll repeat a perfect example that I witnessed myself. There are two
> > schools past which I used to cycle every day. One a Jr. High and the other a
> > Grade School. The front of these schools used to be completely covered with
> > bicycles. Every path had bike racks along them and not only were all the
> > racks completely full but bikes were stacked against the buildings.
>
> > California passed a helmet law and the very DAY it came into effect the
> > front of the schools had less than a dozen bikes and soon enough not even
> > those. The racks were removed and now the front of those schools is a mass
> > of SUV's every morning and afternoon.
>
> > Dumhb bastards could see what they've done but they're so convinced they're
> > right that they don't care who is harmed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting. We used to enforce the helmet law on our daughters when
> they were younger. They didn't care back then. Now they are 14 and
> 11 and we don't enforce the helmety law. Would I like it if they put
> them on? Sure. But, if we made them wear their helmets, they for
> sure, without a doubt, would never get on their bikes. I'd rather
> have them ride without a helmet than not ride at all. I never wore a
> helmet when I rode my bike as a kid and I was far more reckless back
> then than I am now on my road bike. I've been kicking around the idea
> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
> riding a road bike.
> --
> Marty

just let us know now what your local hospital is so we'll know where
to send flowers ...

Date: 16 May 2007 14:50:14
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On 16 May 2007 11:33:52 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

>On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I've been kicking around the idea
>> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
>> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
>> riding a road bike.
>
>just let us know now what your local hospital is so we'll know where
>to send flowers ...

So idiotic: if someone rides w/o a helmet, then they will have a
serious injury.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 16 May 2007 19:05:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <ghkm439of5tcuadoq4q1leed4efm3c91dl@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On 16 May 2007 11:33:52 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 16, 12:21 pm, Marty <m_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've been kicking around the idea
> >> of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
> >> feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
> >> riding a road bike.
> >
> >just let us know now what your local hospital is so we'll know where
> >to send flowers ...
>
> So idiotic: if someone rides w/o a helmet, then they will have a
> serious injury.

Cue Dr. Smith from "Lost In Space": "We're all going to die!!!!" Whatever.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 May 2007 09:21:27
From: Marty
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 13, 11:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d8fkh4-ae5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > in message <1179079396.067818.96...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bar
> > ('barbari...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> >>> This
> >>> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
> >>> their best interests.
>
> >> Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> >> all the time.
>
> >>> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
> >>> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?
>
> >> I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
> >> disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
> >> slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
> >> else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
> >> even encourage) it.
>
> > Other way round. They're flat, lazy slobs who play xbox and munch fritos
> > because they've been persuaded by their lying parents that getting
> > outdoors on their bikes is too dangerous, and requires you to wear too
> > much uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncool 'safety' equipment.
>
> Indeed. I'll repeat a perfect example that I witnessed myself. There are two
> schools past which I used to cycle every day. One a Jr. High and the other a
> Grade School. The front of these schools used to be completely covered with
> bicycles. Every path had bike racks along them and not only were all the
> racks completely full but bikes were stacked against the buildings.
>
> California passed a helmet law and the very DAY it came into effect the
> front of the schools had less than a dozen bikes and soon enough not even
> those. The racks were removed and now the front of those schools is a mass
> of SUV's every morning and afternoon.
>
> Dumhb bastards could see what they've done but they're so convinced they're
> right that they don't care who is harmed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting. We used to enforce the helmet law on our daughters when
they were younger. They didn't care back then. Now they are 14 and
11 and we don't enforce the helmety law. Would I like it if they put
them on? Sure. But, if we made them wear their helmets, they for
sure, without a doubt, would never get on their bikes. I'd rather
have them ride without a helmet than not ride at all. I never wore a
helmet when I rode my bike as a kid and I was far more reckless back
then than I am now on my road bike. I've been kicking around the idea
of not wearing a helmet just to change things up a bit. See how it
feels to ride helmetless, like I did years ago when I 1st started
riding a road bike.
--
Marty

Date: 13 May 2007 11:03:16
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

> This
> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
> their best interests.

Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
all the time.

> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?

I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
even encourage) it.

But to be honest, I really don't give a shit about other people's
kids. Mine wear helmets when riding (not walking, at this point)
because I think it's the right thing to do. And they have just as
much fun -- although my son did lose a sprint to me once because sweat
ran down his brow and into his eye, causing him to lose his sister's
wheel (she leads him out) and allowing me to nip around on the inside.

Date: 14 May 2007 09:04:39
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On 13 May 2007 11:03:16 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

>Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
>all the time.

I ALWAYS told my kid the truth as I knew it, using examples from my
life to give him guidance. He spent his entire childhood wondering
what his mother meant when she kept spelling, "S T F U" to me.

Now he knows...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 14 May 2007 16:31:26
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <71rg43d32ueum6opr83mprgfrvgtlae3c4@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On 13 May 2007 11:03:16 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> >all the time.
>
> I ALWAYS told my kid the truth as I knew it, using examples from my
> life to give him guidance. He spent his entire childhood wondering
> what his mother meant when she kept spelling, "S T F U" to me.
>
> Now he knows...

What, you mean you didn't tell him?!?

I never lie to my dog,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 15 May 2007 00:47:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <rcousine-A4C961.09312614052007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:

> In article <71rg43d32ueum6opr83mprgfrvgtlae3c4@4ax.com>,
> Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > On 13 May 2007 11:03:16 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> > >all the time.
> >
> > I ALWAYS told my kid the truth as I knew it, using examples from my
> > life to give him guidance. He spent his entire childhood wondering
> > what his mother meant when she kept spelling, "S T F U" to me.
> >
> > Now he knows...
>
> What, you mean you didn't tell him?!?
>
> I never lie to my dog,

You just stick a peanut butter jar on her head...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 May 2007 03:28:43
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <YOURhoward-25AE09.00475315052007@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <rcousine-A4C961.09312614052007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <71rg43d32ueum6opr83mprgfrvgtlae3c4@4ax.com>,
> > Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 May 2007 11:03:16 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> > > >all the time.
> > >
> > > I ALWAYS told my kid the truth as I knew it, using examples from my
> > > life to give him guidance. He spent his entire childhood wondering
> > > what his mother meant when she kept spelling, "S T F U" to me.
> > >
> > > Now he knows...
> >
> > What, you mean you didn't tell him?!?
> >
> > I never lie to my dog,
>
> You just stick a peanut butter jar on her head...

Oh that.

She totally wanted it.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 13 May 2007 23:15:09
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

in message <1179079396.067818.96210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, bar
('barbaricia@gmail.com') wrote:

>> This
>> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
>> their best interests.
>
> Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
> all the time.
>
>> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
>> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?
>
> I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
> disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
> slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
> else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
> even encourage) it.

Other way round. They're flat, lazy slobs who play xbox and munch fritos
because they've been persuaded by their lying parents that getting
outdoors on their bikes is too dangerous, and requires you to wear too
much uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncool 'safety' equipment.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

Date: 14 May 2007 05:18:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:d8fkh4-ae5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <1179079396.067818.96210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bar
> ('barbaricia@gmail.com') wrote:
>
>>> This
>>> moron actually believes that we should lie to children if we think it in
>>> their best interests.
>>
>> Of course. I lie to my kids -- or provide them with "blended truth" --
>> all the time.
>>
>>> Or maybe he's so stupid he doesn't know that bicycling
>>> has essentially disappeared among children because of the helmet laws?
>>
>> I'll admit to being intellectually challenged, but I think cycling has
>> disappeared among children primarily because most of them are fat lazy
>> slobs who would rather play xbox and munch fritos than do anything
>> else, and they just happen to have ignorant parents who tolerate (or
>> even encourage) it.
>
> Other way round. They're flat, lazy slobs who play xbox and munch fritos
> because they've been persuaded by their lying parents that getting
> outdoors on their bikes is too dangerous, and requires you to wear too
> much uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncool 'safety' equipment.

Indeed. I'll repeat a perfect example that I witnessed myself. There are two
schools past which I used to cycle every day. One a Jr. High and the other a
Grade School. The front of these schools used to be completely covered with
bicycles. Every path had bike racks along them and not only were all the
racks completely full but bikes were stacked against the buildings.

California passed a helmet law and the very DAY it came into effect the
front of the schools had less than a dozen bikes and soon enough not even
those. The racks were removed and now the front of those schools is a mass
of SUV's every morning and afternoon.

Dumhb bastards could see what they've done but they're so convinced they're
right that they don't care who is harmed.

Date: 12 May 2007 01:05:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: team for the future

"bar" <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1178926549.092815.283470@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
> Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
> notwithstanding).
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news
>
> The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
> worried:
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_camp07/IMG_7780
>
> Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
> moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
> they can set a better example for the young guns than that.

Well, you certainly should be able to judge someone else what with your
immense knowledge of how well helmets work.

Oh, wait, no country that has maintained statistics of bicycle accidents has
shown any improvement in their safety records upon massive increases in
helmet use.

Could it possibly be that you are a nitwit without the brains to be able to
understand who knows what they're doing and who doesn't?

Date: 11 May 2007 18:02:19
From: bar
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On May 11, 8:08 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <701a43to2k4h9rgmot54gbb5l7iocgs...@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 May 2007 16:35:49 -0700, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
> > >Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
> > >notwithstanding).
>
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news
>
> > >The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
> > >worried:
>
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_ca...
> > > MG_7780
>
> > >Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
> > >moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
> > >they can set a better example for the young guns than that.
>
> > Nice troll.
>
> Hardly. Wrong bait for this hole. He needs to ask us for doping advice
> to stir things up in rbr.
>
> Take that act to rbm,
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Tough crowd. Cut a noob some slack? :)

Date: 12 May 2007 08:52:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

bar wrote:
> Tough crowd. Cut a noob some slack? :)

You need to join LIVEDRUNK(tm) to get slack.

Date: 12 May 2007 20:28:33
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <46456453$0$20095$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> bar wrote:
> > Tough crowd. Cut a noob some slack? :)
>
> You need to join LIVEDRUNK(tm) to get slack.

That's "sack." Dry sack.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 12 May 2007 04:37:53
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <1178931739.627340.77460@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 11, 8:08 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <701a43to2k4h9rgmot54gbb5l7iocgs...@4ax.com>,
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 11 May 2007 16:35:49 -0700, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
> > > >Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
> > > >notwithstanding).
> >
> > > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news
> >
> > > >The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
> > > >worried:
> >
> > > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_ca..
> > > > .
> > > > MG_7780
> >
> > > >Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
> > > >moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
> > > >they can set a better example for the young guns than that.
> >
> > > Nice troll.
> >
> > Hardly. Wrong bait for this hole. He needs to ask us for doping advice
> > to stir things up in rbr.
> >
> > Take that act to rbm,

> Tough crowd. Cut a noob some slack? :)

No, but we'll call you dumbass for your trouble.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 11 May 2007 18:25:35
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

Date: 11 May 2007 20:02:21
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

On 11 May 2007 16:35:49 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com > wrote:

>Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
>Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
>notwithstanding).
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news
>
>The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
>worried:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_camp07/IMG_7780
>
>Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
>moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
>they can set a better example for the young guns than that.

Nice troll.

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

Date: 12 May 2007 00:08:54
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: BMC: team for the future

In article <701a43to2k4h9rgmot54gbb5l7iocgs087@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On 11 May 2007 16:35:49 -0700, bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Apparently the BMC boys are in Europe kicking ass at the Giro di
> >Fruiti (thumbtacks in the road for all other competitors
> >notwithstanding).
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may12news
> >
> >The team clearly has a bright future. However, one thing has me
> >worried:
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?id=/photos/2007/features/bmc_camp07/I
> > MG_7780
> >
> >Note that the two old farts ... er ... seasoned pros on the team (ie,
> >moninger and sayers) are the only tools not wearing helmets!! Surely
> >they can set a better example for the young guns than that.
>
> Nice troll.

Hardly. Wrong bait for this hole. He needs to ask us for doping advice
to stir things up in rbr.

Take that act to rbm,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos