bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 05 Jan 2006 06:07:17 From: NYC XYZ Subject: No Helmets Needed? Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of helmetless riders? Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no? I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the ground as it is.... I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why not wear a real helmet? Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and lighter than styrofoam?   Date: 14 Jan 2006 17:44:31 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > > Naw, not a 'bent rider, although I wouldn't mind trying to ride one... > I remember the Vic-20 though, I actually worked for Commodore Business > Machines the summer they brought out the C-64, did some programming > with a demo that had serial number 6. Ah, those were the days, I hear, when a game could be totally designed by the programmer, who raked in most of the cash! I hope you had your Richard Garriot moments. Me, I was still to be introduced to a Commodore PET in Sixth Grade! > As for computer mags, kinda liked Byte myself.... No wonder you ain't no 'bent rider! Probably use an Apple now, too. > W     Date: 15 Jan 2006 09:44:13 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > The Wogster wrote: > >>Naw, not a 'bent rider, although I wouldn't mind trying to ride one... >>I remember the Vic-20 though, I actually worked for Commodore Business >>Machines the summer they brought out the C-64, did some programming >>with a demo that had serial number 6. > > > Ah, those were the days, I hear, when a game could be totally designed > by the programmer, who raked in most of the cash! I hope you had your > Richard Garriot moments. > > Me, I was still to be introduced to a Commodore PET in Sixth Grade! I think I was in Grade 10, when our school got a pair of PETs in the school library, and you had to sign out computer time, and nerdy types always had a cassette tape in their shirt pockets. Rebels had a cigarette pack in the same pocket, and Jocks didn't wear shirts with pockets. >>As for computer mags, kinda liked Byte myself.... > > > No wonder you ain't no 'bent rider! Probably use an Apple now, too. Nope, I type this on an old IBM that I bought 5 years ago..... Apple have always been too pricey, and black boxes. The IBM I can upgrade, but will probably just replace. I still read Jerry Pournelle, but these days it's online. W   Date: 14 Jan 2006 09:08:43 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > > I get the point of the upper left and lower right quadrants, but what > > does the "camel toe" have to do with Mr. Ed? > > The ride of your life! I don't think "Saint Ed Dolan" will be riding anything like that anytime soon! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:53:48 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > I get the point of the upper left and lower right quadrants, but what > does the "camel toe" have to do with Mr. Ed? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley The ride of your life!   Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:53:09 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > ... > Ah, Paperclip, the program that takes a $3,000 computer with 512MB of > ram, and a 4GHz processor and turns it into a Vic-20. The last time I used a Vic-20, I was also riding a Peugeot P-8. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:49:40 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > >... > > I NEVER go to links referred to me by those I do not trust. Elementary, my > > dear Watson! > > Oh, goodie, here's another one, then: > > http://newyork.craigslist.org/brx/rnr/124975689.html I get the point of the upper left and lower right quadrants, but what does the "camel toe" have to do with Mr. Ed? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:36:12 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Yes, both are true. Therefore, appearances matter. Who we really are is > unknown, even to ourselves. Appearances only matter to fools. > Aristotle was wrong about most things under the sun as was Plato and > Socrates. Actually, that's you. It was a rediscovery of Aristotle that lead to the Renaissance. Prior to that, the Church was all about Plato. Like I said, I would...but I'm afraid you'd only go postal in a bookstore. > But still they were superior to the Orientals that had existed up > to that time Of course, that all depends on what the Dickens you mean by "superior" in this case. (Don't bother -- it's rhetorical. Was only reminded of a program last night on PBS about that Egyptian Pharaoh who believed in one god, and how the narrator used the most outlandish superlatives without qualification or explanation: "the greatest empire ever," "changed the world forever," etc. For your own much-needed information, you'll want to remember Oxford don Joseph Needham's eleven-volume "Science and Civilization in Ancient China.") >. It took the Renaissance before man began to think at all > logically about things due to the emergence of scientific thinking. No, the ancient Greeks were already codifying formal logic. And as far as the empiricism of scientific thinking, nothing could be done without its actual practice, whatever the circumstances of its actual codification as theory, so the fact is that it was already > Yup, he is Jew all right and a New York Jew too - the worst kind. He and > Howard Stern are birds of a feather - liberal and scummy! Who's "he"? What are you talking about now? > We will never know will we because you did not include the pertinent passage > to which reference was being made. Never heard of google? > Like all half-educated slobs, you do not > know how to edit. > [...] I was rather hoping that you wouldn't forget your own bullshit so soon! > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota "Where all the men are weak, all the women are ugly, and the children...below average!"     Date: 14 Jan 2006 18:52:00 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137252972.061799.69510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> Yes, both are true. Therefore, appearances matter. Who we really are is >> unknown, even to ourselves. > > Appearances only matter to fools. You have so far appeared rather poorly here on these newsgroups. >> Aristotle was wrong about most things under the sun as was Plato and >> Socrates. > > Actually, that's you. > > It was a rediscovery of Aristotle that lead to the Renaissance. Prior > to that, the Church was all about Plato. > > Like I said, I would...but I'm afraid you'd only go postal in a > bookstore. > >> But still they were superior to the Orientals that had existed up >> to that time > > Of course, that all depends on what the Dickens you mean by "superior" > in this case. > > (Don't bother -- it's rhetorical. Was only reminded of a program last > night on PBS about that Egyptian Pharaoh who believed in one god, and > how the narrator used the most outlandish superlatives without > qualification or explanation: "the greatest empire ever," "changed the > world forever," etc. For your own much-needed information, you'll want > to remember Oxford don Joseph Needham's eleven-volume "Science and > Civilization in Ancient China.") The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from us in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even the Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of civilization I care about began with the West at about the time of the Renaissance in Italy. >>. It took the Renaissance before man began to think at all >> logically about things due to the emergence of scientific thinking. > > No, the ancient Greeks were already codifying formal logic. And as far > as the empiricism of scientific thinking, nothing could be done without > its actual practice, whatever the circumstances of its actual > codification as theory, so the fact is that it was already Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's mouth and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, but still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and is always severely limited in what it can know. >> Yup, he is Jew all right and a New York Jew too - the worst kind. He and >> Howard Stern are birds of a feather - liberal and scummy! > > Who's "he"? What are you talking about now? You indicated that you thought Howard Stern was the cat's pajamas in contradistinction to Rush Limbaugh. Stern is scum and Limbaugh is not. Need more be said? >> We will never know will we because you did not include the pertinent >> passage >> to which reference was being made. > > Never heard of google? The main thing you need to know about me is that I am the laziest person in the world. Not only that, but I take great pride in being so lazy. Therefore, I will NEVER go back and look up anything. It either gets posted right in the first place or it is lost forever as far as I am concerned. >> Like all half-educated slobs, you do not >> know how to edit. >> [...] > > I was rather hoping that you wouldn't forget your own bullshit so soon! Nope, include everything that you want me to respond to and I will. I do not bother to even remember what I say from one moment to the next. I am too Great for that. I leave the trifling details of life to my inferiors, and their numbers are legion. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 15 Jan 2006 09:37:14 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1137252972.061799.69510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>> >>>Yes, both are true. Therefore, appearances matter. Who we really are is >>>unknown, even to ourselves. >> >>Appearances only matter to fools. > > > You have so far appeared rather poorly here on these newsgroups. > > >>>Aristotle was wrong about most things under the sun as was Plato and >>>Socrates. >> >>Actually, that's you. >> >>It was a rediscovery of Aristotle that lead to the Renaissance. Prior >>to that, the Church was all about Plato. >> >>Like I said, I would...but I'm afraid you'd only go postal in a >>bookstore. >> >> >>>But still they were superior to the Orientals that had existed up >>>to that time >> >>Of course, that all depends on what the Dickens you mean by "superior" >>in this case. >> >>(Don't bother -- it's rhetorical. Was only reminded of a program last >>night on PBS about that Egyptian Pharaoh who believed in one god, and >>how the narrator used the most outlandish superlatives without >>qualification or explanation: "the greatest empire ever," "changed the >>world forever," etc. For your own much-needed information, you'll want >>to remember Oxford don Joseph Needham's eleven-volume "Science and >>Civilization in Ancient China.") > > > The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from us > in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even the > Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of civilization I > care about began with the West at about the time of the Renaissance in > Italy. However if it had not been for the rise and fall of the Italian (Roman) Empire, then the Italian Renaissance, might have never happened. > > >>>. It took the Renaissance before man began to think at all >>>logically about things due to the emergence of scientific thinking. >> >>No, the ancient Greeks were already codifying formal logic. And as far >>as the empiricism of scientific thinking, nothing could be done without >>its actual practice, whatever the circumstances of its actual >>codification as theory, so the fact is that it was already > > > Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth > than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's mouth > and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! That's not logic, perhaps the women he did look at, had lost a few teeth by that time, so he figured they had less, perhaps with a larger sample size, the possible truth of his idea would have disappeared..... > > The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, but > still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and is > always severely limited in what it can know. Science and Technology are close relatives. Science is the knowledge, technology is the implementation of that knowledge. No technology now in existance, would exist without some scientific discovery. Here is an example, the science: If you take methane gas, and apply heat you get a chemical reaction (fire). This lead to the technology behind the natural gas furnace. One that I am happy about this morning, in that the temperature outside is -12C, so I don't have to go out and chop wood this morning. W         Date: 15 Jan 2006 16:52:33 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:C6tyf.60$xk1.16818@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from >> us in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even >> the Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of >> civilization I care about began with the West at about the time of the >> Renaissance in Italy. > > However if it had not been for the rise and fall of the Italian (Roman) > Empire, then the Italian Renaissance, might have never happened. There was nothing Italian about Ancient Rome. However, there was everything Italian about Renaissance Italy. I do not like to see Rome given too much credit for the rise of Europe. [...] >> Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth >> than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's >> mouth and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! > > That's not logic, perhaps the women he did look at, had lost a few teeth > by that time, so he figured they had less, perhaps with a larger sample > size, the possible truth of his idea would have disappeared..... Yes, you are thinking like a man of the West, but Aristotle was thinking like a Greek. Huge difference! >> The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, >> but still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and >> is always severely limited in what it can know. > > Science and Technology are close relatives. Science is the knowledge, > technology is the implementation of that knowledge. No technology now in > existance, would exist without some scientific discovery. Very sophisticated technology can exist without any foundation in science whatsoever. The High Middle Ages proved that. > Here is an example, the science: If you take methane gas, and apply heat > you get a chemical reaction (fire). This lead to the technology behind > the natural gas furnace. One that I am happy about this morning, in that > the temperature outside is -12C, so I don't have to go out and chop wood > this morning. The rise of science only occurred in the West. It is why Western Civilization is now dominant in the world. Why it occurred in the West and nowhere else is very mysterious, but I attribute it to the Protestant Reformation in Western Europe. Science and technology are two different things. They may or may not be related. All civilizations have technology, but only the West developed science. Huge difference! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 15 Jan 2006 18:22:37 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:C6tyf.60$xk1.16818@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from >>>us in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even >>>the Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of >>>civilization I care about began with the West at about the time of the >>>Renaissance in Italy. >> >>However if it had not been for the rise and fall of the Italian (Roman) >>Empire, then the Italian Renaissance, might have never happened. > > > There was nothing Italian about Ancient Rome. However, there was everything > Italian about Renaissance Italy. I do not like to see Rome given too much > credit for the rise of Europe. > [...] You sure about that, Rome is in Italy after all, Roman government might have fallen, but there are modern Italians in Rome, who have Roman roots.... However Romans after the fall had to reinvent themselves and Italy is the result. >>>Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth >>>than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's >>>mouth and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! >> >>That's not logic, perhaps the women he did look at, had lost a few teeth >>by that time, so he figured they had less, perhaps with a larger sample >>size, the possible truth of his idea would have disappeared..... > > Yes, you are thinking like a man of the West, but Aristotle was thinking > like a Greek. Huge difference! Make that ancient Greek, modern Greeks are quite different, I know a few of them..... >>>The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, >>>but still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and >>>is always severely limited in what it can know. >> >>Science and Technology are close relatives. Science is the knowledge, >>technology is the implementation of that knowledge. No technology now in >>existance, would exist without some scientific discovery. > > Very sophisticated technology can exist without any foundation in science > whatsoever. The High Middle Ages proved that. > Either your definition of technology or your definition of science is flawed... >>Here is an example, the science: If you take methane gas, and apply heat >>you get a chemical reaction (fire). This lead to the technology behind >>the natural gas furnace. One that I am happy about this morning, in that >>the temperature outside is -12C, so I don't have to go out and chop wood >>this morning. > > > The rise of science only occurred in the West. It is why Western > Civilization is now dominant in the world. Why it occurred in the West and > nowhere else is very mysterious, but I attribute it to the Protestant > Reformation in Western Europe. Science and technology are two different > things. They may or may not be related. All civilizations have technology, > but only the West developed science. Huge difference! Gee, now your thinking like a modern American, where only science that is discoved, and technology developed in the USA count. W             Date: 15 Jan 2006 19:02:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:oPAyf.251$924.26521@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >> news:C6tyf.60$xk1.16818@news20.bellglobal.com... >> >>>Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different >>>>from us in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. >>>>Even the Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of >>>>civilization I care about began with the West at about the time of the >>>>Renaissance in Italy. >>> >>>However if it had not been for the rise and fall of the Italian (Roman) >>>Empire, then the Italian Renaissance, might have never happened. >> >> >> There was nothing Italian about Ancient Rome. However, there was >> everything Italian about Renaissance Italy. I do not like to see Rome >> given too much credit for the rise of Europe. >> [...] > > You sure about that, Rome is in Italy after all, Roman government might > have fallen, but there are modern Italians in Rome, who have Roman > roots.... However Romans after the fall had to reinvent themselves and > Italy is the result. No, Italy was invaded by various tribes after the fall of the Empire and there was nothing Roman about them at all. >>>>Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth >>>>than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's >>>>mouth and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! >>> >>>That's not logic, perhaps the women he did look at, had lost a few teeth >>>by that time, so he figured they had less, perhaps with a larger sample >>>size, the possible truth of his idea would have disappeared..... >> >> Yes, you are thinking like a man of the West, but Aristotle was thinking >> like a Greek. Huge difference! > > Make that ancient Greek, modern Greeks are quite different, I know a few > of them..... Yes, modern Greeks and Romans are as Western as you and I are. When I reference Roman and Greek in a historical discussion like this, I am of course referring to the ancient civilizations. >>>>The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, >>>>but still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and >>>>is always severely limited in what it can know. >>> >>>Science and Technology are close relatives. Science is the knowledge, >>>technology is the implementation of that knowledge. No technology now in >>>existance, would exist without some scientific discovery. >> >> Very sophisticated technology can exist without any foundation in science >> whatsoever. The High Middle Ages proved that. >> > > Either your definition of technology or your definition of science is > flawed... Yes, I am assuming a universe of understanding which you do not have. We would have to began with a History of Western Civilization 101 to be followed by a History of Science 101. It is way too much work at our ages. You either get it in your youth or you miss out on it forever. >>>Here is an example, the science: If you take methane gas, and apply heat >>>you get a chemical reaction (fire). This lead to the technology behind >>>the natural gas furnace. One that I am happy about this morning, in that >>>the temperature outside is -12C, so I don't have to go out and chop wood >>>this morning. >> >> >> The rise of science only occurred in the West. It is why Western >> Civilization is now dominant in the world. Why it occurred in the West >> and nowhere else is very mysterious, but I attribute it to the Protestant >> Reformation in Western Europe. Science and technology are two different >> things. They may or may not be related. All civilizations have >> technology, but only the West developed science. Huge difference! > > Gee, now your thinking like a modern American, where only science that is > discoved, and technology developed in the USA count. By the West, I mean Western Civilization or Christendom. If you had had a college liberal arts education it would not be necessary for me to recover these terms for you. By the way science was not discovered, it was invented. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 13 Jan 2006 06:38:11 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > > > Ah, Paperclip, the program that takes a $3,000 computer with 512MB of > ram, and a 4GHz processor and turns it into a Vic-20. > > W LOL -- The Missing Link! Old Commodore users who subscribed to "Info" mag reincarnated as 'bent riders!     Date: 13 Jan 2006 19:55:34 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > The Wogster wrote: > >> >>Ah, Paperclip, the program that takes a $3,000 computer with 512MB of >>ram, and a 4GHz processor and turns it into a Vic-20. >> >>W > > > > LOL -- The Missing Link! Old Commodore users who subscribed to "Info" > mag reincarnated as 'bent riders! > Naw, not a 'bent rider, although I wouldn't mind trying to ride one... I remember the Vic-20 though, I actually worked for Commodore Business Machines the summer they brought out the C-64, did some programming with a demo that had serial number 6. As for computer mags, kinda liked Byte myself.... W   Date: 13 Jan 2006 06:36:21 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > I have just told you above that appearances are everything. Therefore how we > style ourselves is the ONLY thing that matters. Jeez! Learn how to read why > don't you. > [...] You just told me that even couples are strangers to one another. So appearances don't mean anything. As IBM used to say, "ThiMk!" > Stern is a scum bag which only other scum bags follow. Congratulations! I > have now got you down for a scum bag and that is how I will treat you from > now one. Are you also a Jew scumbag? > [...] Hehe...I'd like to recommend Aristotelian Logic to you, but I'm afraid you'd run out and shoot the part-time bookstore clerk. > Parody is not the same thing as sarcasm. Consult a dictionary for the > difference. Your sarcasm goes nowhere. Did you not read what I said above > about one liners? > [...] Did I say they were one and the same? As for appealing to dictionaries, how would you know if a word is misspelled? > I NEVER go to links referred to me by those I do not trust. Elementary, my > dear Watson! Oh, goodie, here's another one, then: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brx/rnr/124975689.html > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota It's 2006...maybe you oughta add a .gif or something there.     Date: 14 Jan 2006 00:00:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137162981.926692.271330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> I have just told you above that appearances are everything. Therefore how >> we >> style ourselves is the ONLY thing that matters. Jeez! Learn how to read >> why >> don't you. >> [...] > > You just told me that even couples are strangers to one another. So > appearances don't mean anything. As IBM used to say, "ThiMk!" Yes, both are true. Therefore, appearances matter. Who we really are is unknown, even to ourselves. >> Stern is a scum bag which only other scum bags follow. Congratulations! I >> have now got you down for a scum bag and that is how I will treat you >> from >> now one. Are you also a Jew scumbag? >> [...] > > Hehe...I'd like to recommend Aristotelian Logic to you, but I'm afraid > you'd run out and shoot the part-time bookstore clerk. Aristotle was wrong about most things under the sun as was Plato and Socrates. But still they were superior to the Orientals that had existed up to that time. It took the Renaissance before man began to think at all logically about things due to the emergence of scientific thinking. Yup, he is Jew all right and a New York Jew too - the worst kind. He and Howard Stern are birds of a feather - liberal and scummy! >> Parody is not the same thing as sarcasm. Consult a dictionary for the >> difference. Your sarcasm goes nowhere. Did you not read what I said above >> about one liners? >> [...] > > Did I say they were one and the same? We will never know will we because you did not include the pertinent passage to which reference was being made. Like all half-educated slobs, you do not know how to edit. [...] Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 12 Jan 2006 13:40:36 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Curiously, no gift shoppe link. But they are looking for a "carpet planner" at ~US$30K/yr.! Then again, I wonder how much they pay their IRA moles, heh-heh. Dave Larrington wrote: > > > Gagh! My eyes! MY EYES!! > > (join republican movement) > > -- > Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/> > The best way to confuse a Daily Mail reader is to tell it that > paedophiles form the staple diet of asylum seekers.   Date: 12 Jan 2006 06:42:27 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > It is a question of ethics, but decorum is even more important. In fact, > when you get to be my age you will realize that appearances are everything. > Who knows or cares what anyone is really like? Even ried couples are > strangers to one another. So it really doesn't matter how we style ourselves here. > Truth to tell, I do not even think my cats > understand me. What do you expect from a brain the size of a walnut? > They look at me very cross much of the time even though I > dote on them. Why is that I wonder! I hear they're very sensitive to smell. > No, when he gets fired up he will say really outrageous things that no one > else would dare say. That in my book is entertainment! Haw haw haw! "No one else dares!" Reminds me of the time howie stern had to apologize to the hispanics for making fun of selena-what's-her-face's death...gee, who would have thought that 80% of the ket for flatulence, fake tits, and ethnic humor made by a Jew is...hispanic! I bet most of bush limhog's fans are transvestites. > It is somewhat interesting to me that someone living in NYC would find > Keillor at all entertaining. His humor is quite countrified, even folk like. > He is far removed from the canyons of NYC. > [...] Y'all are very quaint to us. We vel at life in Wonder Bread Country. > But that would quickly reduce to being nothing but a blog as I can't imagine > anyone coming to visit me when I all I would ever do is tell them about all > their shortcomings, like I am doing with you. > [...] Did I have a shortcoming? Where? > OK, so be just another ghost on Usenet. Who cares? I guess maybe if my name > were Jack I would not want anyone one to know about it either. Who ever > heard of King Jack? On the other hand, King Edward is well known. Yes, it is > nice to a have a name you can be proud of and wear with distinction. Funny you say distinction...I could never tell one long-haired fat guy in tights from another. > I wonder if I shouldn't drop the Ed in my signature in favor of Edward? I > mean, it is just such a Great Name! However, there are still some few souls > on Usenet who do not think I am such a bad fellow and Ed is more familiar > than Edward. Less off-putting you know, even though I do regard myself as > worthy of being placed along side all those King Edwards. I really should be > addressed as Your Highness or Your Majesty accompanied by much bowing and > scraping. Nah, they wouldn't really mean it. That's the trouble with servants -- you never know if they really mean "good morning." > I have never for the life of me been able to figure out what I am > doing living in the 21st century when I am clearly a man of the 18th century > and of a royal personage no less. Me myself, I've always felt that I was born five hundred years too early. Trolling usenet will be nothing compared to bothering people from your jet-pack. > No "hey there" for me! You prefer "yo' highness"? > More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long run. Try to > enlarge on your thoughts. Most particularly, try to avoid just one sentence > per paragraph. This ks you as a quipper (is this a word - one who makes > quips), but not necessarily a wit. Most of us should never strive for wit. > It is clearly beyond us as it requires a very high order of intelligence. > Even I, the Great Ed Dolan, am not capable of wit. Alas, I can only do low > grades of parody. Sarcasm is indeed the laziest form of rebuttal. > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota What you need is a website! Like so: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp     Date: 13 Jan 2006 01:40:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137076947.414539.97450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> It is a question of ethics, but decorum is even more important. In fact, >> when you get to be my age you will realize that appearances are >> everything. >> Who knows or cares what anyone is really like? Even ried couples are >> strangers to one another. > > So it really doesn't matter how we style ourselves here. I have just told you above that appearances are everything. Therefore how we style ourselves is the ONLY thing that matters. Jeez! Learn how to read why don't you. [...] >> No, when he Rush L:imbaugh] gets fired up he will say really outrageous >> things that no one >> else would dare say. That in my book is entertainment! > > Haw haw haw! "No one else dares!" Reminds me of the time howie stern > had to apologize to the hispanics for making fun of > selena-what's-her-face's death...gee, who would have thought that 80% > of the ket for flatulence, fake tits, and ethnic humor made by a Jew > is...hispanic! I bet most of bush limhog's fans are transvestites. Stern is a scum bag which only other scum bags follow. Congratulations! I have now got you down for a scum bag and that is how I will treat you from now one. Are you also a Jew scumbag? [...] >> More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long run. Try to >> enlarge on your thoughts. Most particularly, try to avoid just one >> sentence >> per paragraph. This ks you as a quipper (is this a word - one who >> makes >> quips), but not necessarily a wit. Most of us should never strive for >> wit. >> It is clearly beyond us as it requires a very high order of intelligence. >> Even I, the Great Ed Dolan, am not capable of wit. Alas, I can only do >> low >> grades of parody. > > Sarcasm is indeed the laziest form of rebuttal. Parody is not the same thing as sarcasm. Consult a dictionary for the difference. Your sarcasm goes nowhere. Did you not read what I said above about one liners? [...] > What you need is a website! Like so: > > http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp I NEVER go to links referred to me by those I do not trust. Elementary, my dear Watson! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 12 Jan 2006 14:44:57 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1137076947.414539.97450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, NYC XYZ (jack_foreigner@yahoo.com) wrote: > What you need is a website! Like so: > > http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp Gagh! My eyes! MY EYES!! (join republican movement) -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > The best way to confuse a Daily Mail reader is to tell it that paedophiles form the staple diet of asylum seekers.   Date: 09 Jan 2006 23:47:48 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <%3Jwf.86$sd1.40@tornado.socal.rr.com >, "Sorni" <sornidelicates@san.rr.com > writes: >> Thus spake Zarathustra. > > Prolix? > > Thus queried Sorneye. He's just being obtuse. I am become ... .... I dunno ... sumbthin'. 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: 09 Jan 2006 21:15:51 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <l4idnYWPwcJlUV_eRVn-ow@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > I have not yet decided whether Tom Keats is an idiot or not. I've decided to give you enough rope, since you're obviously already using it. Carry on. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 09 Jan 2006 18:01:12 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long run.... Really? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Jan 2006 21:24:44 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136857199.831241.31360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> ... >> More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long run.... > > Really? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley The king of the one-liners (Tom Sherman) ought to know, but a single word? I could stop right here and now but then I would be like Mr. Sherman, a disgrace to myself. No, no, let me go on at some length and tell you my theory of one-liners. These poor benighted souls think they are being witty when all they are doing is trying everyone's patience. It is far better to be prolix like me, but don't over do it either. It is really a question of good taste and intelligence to know how far to go. One-liners and single-worders never have any good taste and they are mostly idiots to boot. I don't believe anyone in this world has ever accused Mr. Sherman of having good taste. Thus spake Zarathustra. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 10 Jan 2006 07:08:43 From: Sorni Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1136857199.831241.31360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> >> Edward Dolan wrote: >>> ... >>> More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long >>> run.... >> >> Really? >> >> -- >> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley > > The king of the one-liners (Tom Sherman) ought to know, but a single > word? I could stop right here and now but then I would be like Mr. > Sherman, a disgrace to myself. > > No, no, let me go on at some length and tell you my theory of > one-liners. These poor benighted souls think they are being witty > when all they are doing is trying everyone's patience. It is far > better to be prolix like me, but don't over do it either. It is > really a question of good taste and intelligence to know how far to > go. One-liners and single-worders never have any good taste and they > are mostly idiots to boot. I don't believe anyone in this world has > ever accused Mr. Sherman of having good taste. > Thus spake Zarathustra. Prolix? Thus queried Sorneye.   Date: 09 Jan 2006 18:01:06 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Dave Larrington wrote: > In article <1136604893.850825.13660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > > > The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of > > upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane > > when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on > > an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill. > > I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning" > > if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on > > an uphill section. > > In much of my riding, anything more than single file makes it difficult > to get past. Though I did manage to scare the cr*p out of a couple of > lads going down towards Compton Abdale yesterday (as well as dropping > one of them going up the other side). Speedmachine, Cosimo the Low Baron, or something else? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 10 Jan 2006 11:04:51 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1136856595.929970.318190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com >, Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > > Dave Larrington wrote: > > In article <1136604893.850825.13660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > > > > > The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of > > > upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane > > > when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on > > > an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill. > > > I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning" > > > if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on > > > an uphill section. > > > > In much of my riding, anything more than single file makes it difficult > > to get past. Though I did manage to scare the cr*p out of a couple of > > lads going down towards Compton Abdale yesterday (as well as dropping > > one of them going up the other side). > > Speedmachine, Cosimo the Low Baron, or something else? Trice XXL. I am no longer young and foolish enough to do That Sort Of Thing on two wheels, as it often involves barrelling down country lanes two metres wide and resembling a white-water kayaking course on most respects save colour. And then you come round a corner and meet a Range Rover coming the other way. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > The Real Slim Shady's gone to play tennis.   Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:51:09 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > I briefly met some of these guys once and they are great at what they do, > but they do not do what the Great Ed Dolan does. They are fish and I am > foul.... ^^^^ No argument there! ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Jan 2006 21:55:31 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136857869.899165.72770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> ... >> I briefly met some of these guys once and they are great at what they do, >> but they do not do what the Great Ed Dolan does. They are fish and I am >> foul.... > ^^^^ > > No argument there! ;) I could argue that that was a Freudian slip, but it is just so funny! It was an honest mistake which I recognized the moment after I had sent it. I just about died laughing and I KNEW you would pick up on it. I am the funniest guy I know. But there is some truth to it after all. I am not on these newsgroups in order to be liked. I am here to kick ass when ass needs to be kicked. So of course I do come across as a bit foul every now and then as opposed to being fowl. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:48:39 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > I do not believe Tom Sherman ever built a bike in his life. He is into > pricey recumbents that he buys from manufacturers in the Twin Cities, at > which point they promptly go out of business.... Actually, I adopted Red Sunset, Blue Dragonflyer and Purple Sunset after Earth Cycles went out of business. None were purchased directly from Earth Cycles [1]. [1] I was planning on ordering a Sunset after I finished grade school, er graduate school, but Earth Cycles was effectively defunct by that time. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:42:31 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > As for the rest of your thinking, who knows what the future holds. It may be > that the Muslim terrorists will manage to get their hands on a nuclear > weapon (via Iran) and blow Toronto to kingdom come. What then?... Not too many people would miss Toronto, Iowa. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Jan 2006 21:46:55 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136857351.069872.58640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> ... >> As for the rest of your thinking, who knows what the future holds. It may >> be >> that the Muslim terrorists will manage to get their hands on a nuclear >> weapon (via Iran) and blow Toronto to kingdom come. What then?... > > Not too many people would miss Toronto, Iowa. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley Wogster is a Canadian and a liberal one to boot. They must imbibe that abhorrent ideology with their mother's milk. I will just write them off the same as I do the despicable French. There is no point in bothering with ostriches who only run and hide by putting their heads in the sand and their asses in the air (the better for me to kick them). If the Muslim terrorists blow Toronto and Paris to kingdom come, that will only serve them right for being such morons, imbeciles and all-around idiots. I will rejoice at the prospect of their incineration. When you are as stupid as they are, you don't deserve to live. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:37:39 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > > > > No, I can do that but you can't. If you did it it would be plagiarism and > > forgery. You could go to jail for it. > > Why, are you also copyrighted by microsoft? That's "micro$oft" dude! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 10 Jan 2006 11:08:41 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1136857059.410394.269120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > > NYC XYZ wrote: > > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, I can do that but you can't. If you did it it would be plagiarism and > > > forgery. You could go to jail for it. > > > > Why, are you also copyrighted by microsoft? > > That's "micro$oft" dude! ITYM "Microsith". Unfortunately, the original www.microsith.com is no longer extant, as otherwise one might have the pleasure of meeting Darth Paperclip... -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > My only hope in life is to die before I get my comeuppence.       Date: 10 Jan 2006 06:53:44 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Dave Larrington wrote: > In article <1136857059.410394.269120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > >>NYC XYZ wrote: >> >>>Edward Dolan wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>No, I can do that but you can't. If you did it it would be plagiarism and >>>>forgery. You could go to jail for it. >>> >>>Why, are you also copyrighted by microsoft? >> >>That's "micro$oft" dude! > > > ITYM "Microsith". Unfortunately, the original www.microsith.com is no > longer extant, as otherwise one might have the pleasure of meeting Darth > Paperclip... > Ah, Paperclip, the program that takes a $3,000 computer with 512MB of ram, and a 4GHz processor and turns it into a Vic-20. W   Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:32:53 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it is mainly young teenage farm girls who are into horse riding. They > > especially like to do their thing at county fairs. > > Oh, I thought it was mainly middle-aged dads who find something > irrresistible about a young girl riding a big horse.... I would much rather draft a young woman on an upright bicycle (especially a TT or Tri bike) than one on a horse for TWO obvious reasons. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 09 Jan 2006 13:19:48 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > No, I can do that but you can't. If you did it it would be plagiarism and > forgery. You could go to jail for it. Why, are you also copyrighted by microsoft? > Well, he does drone on and on too much, but when he gets fired up he is > quite entertaining. How's it entertaining when you know exactly what he's going to say? This guy can't tell a joke even if they had to go back and edit the tape! > Keillor is OK in small doses, but he is poisonous if taken in large doses. Well, it's only once a week, and most of the time it's music and "Guy Noir." Not much of "The Life of the Cowboys" lately, though messages from "The Association of English Majors" are always entertaining. > [I am overlooking your misspelling of "misspell'. What, you forgot to take your irony supplements today? > Also, 'hispanics' should > be 'Hispanics', but I won't mention it if you won't.] > [...] It's just an adjective to me, however riled they want to get over it. > 'lifes' just doesn't look right whereas 'life's' does. Just goes to show how > misleading looks can be. > [...] Yeah, when in doubt, go for the obviously wrong choice! > It is no fun to preach to the choir. That'd be alt.rec.ed.dolan.misc.general. > My ministrations are needed on cycling > groups, otherwise grossness takes over and there is one left but a bunch of > slobs and lowlifes. I should really be getting paid for my services to the > hoi polloi. Yes, I'll have that bentrideronline petition started...soon as they reply. > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Does the Governor know about you? > PS. Get a name why don't you? Not necessary; I answer to "hey there" as well.     Date: 09 Jan 2006 16:13:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136841588.349368.228790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> No, I can do that [use my name] but you can't. If you did it it would be >> plagiarism and >> forgery. You could go to jail for it. > > Why, are you also copyrighted by microsoft? It is a question of ethics, but decorum is even more important. In fact, when you get to be my age you will realize that appearances are everything. Who knows or cares what anyone is really like? Even ried couples are strangers to one another. Truth to tell, I do not even think my cats understand me. They look at me very cross much of the time even though I dote on them. Why is that I wonder! >> Well, he [Rush Limbaugh] does drone on and on too much, but when he gets >> fired up he is >> quite entertaining. > > How's it entertaining when you know exactly what he's going to say? > This guy can't tell a joke even if they had to go back and edit the > tape! No, when he gets fired up he will say really outrageous things that no one else would dare say. That in my book is entertainment! >> Keillor is OK in small doses, but he is poisonous if taken in large >> doses. > > Well, it's only once a week, and most of the time it's music and "Guy > Noir." > > Not much of "The Life of the Cowboys" lately, though messages from "The > Association of English Majors" are always entertaining. It is somewhat interesting to me that someone living in NYC would find Keillor at all entertaining. His humor is quite countrified, even folk like. He is far removed from the canyons of NYC. [...] >> It is no fun to preach to the choir. > > That'd be alt.rec.ed.dolan.misc.general. But that would quickly reduce to being nothing but a blog as I can't imagine anyone coming to visit me when I all I would ever do is tell them about all their shortcomings, like I am doing with you. [...] >> PS. Get a name why don't you? > > Not necessary; I answer to "hey there" as well. OK, so be just another ghost on Usenet. Who cares? I guess maybe if my name were Jack I would not want anyone one to know about it either. Who ever heard of King Jack? On the other hand, King Edward is well known. Yes, it is nice to a have a name you can be proud of and wear with distinction. I wonder if I shouldn't drop the Ed in my signature in favor of Edward? I mean, it is just such a Great Name! However, there are still some few souls on Usenet who do not think I am such a bad fellow and Ed is more familiar than Edward. Less off-putting you know, even though I do regard myself as worthy of being placed along side all those King Edwards. I really should be addressed as Your Highness or Your Majesty accompanied by much bowing and scraping. I have never for the life of me been able to figure out what I am doing living in the 21st century when I am clearly a man of the 18th century and of a royal personage no less. No "hey there" for me! More importantly, one liners will not cut it here in the long run. Try to enlarge on your thoughts. Most particularly, try to avoid just one sentence per paragraph. This ks you as a quipper (is this a word - one who makes quips), but not necessarily a wit. Most of us should never strive for wit. It is clearly beyond us as it requires a very high order of intelligence. Even I, the Great Ed Dolan, am not capable of wit. Alas, I can only do low grades of parody. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 12:02:37 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Yes, that is what I am here for, to advise all you dunderheads in cyber > space on elementary good manners. If you would only emulate me, you could go > to the head of the class and get a good k on your report card. > > 'NYC XYZ' tells us where you are from, but is it hardly a proper name. You > will always be regarded as a ghost until you take on a name. Letters are not > names. Elementary, my dear Watson! > [...] Hmm...I think I'll just sign myself on as Edward Dolan from now on. > When you have aged properly and grown in wisdom and virtue, you will realize > that Keillor is indeed the world's biggest bore and that Rush Limbaugh is a > great entertainer, no matter what you might think of his politics. It all > has to do with maturity. Good luck to you as I believe you do show some > promise. But you will first have to get cured of your liberalism, a > congenital disease of all New Yorkers, especially those from the City. > [...] You obviously got it backwards. bush limhog is right on some things politically, but as funny as a banana peel next to a caution sign. Love Keillor's show this past weekend, where he talked about intolerant liberals, the kind who hug trees and blacks and hispanics but won't talk to you if you mispell. Though it's true that Clinton's kid has more brains than the gwb family of four put together. > I settled on my signature because of the obduracy of Peter Cinch and his > idiotic signature, which no one ever objected to but me. I realized then and > there that the more outrageous the signature, the better. I will be > remembered on this newsgroup long after NYC XYZ has faded into the dust bin > of history. It's precisely because I prefer anonymity that I do not post as Edward Dolan! > But more importantly I can come at various miscreants on Usenet from two > directions, an assumed superiority of Greatness and an assumed superiority > of Holiness. If others want to come across as low life's, they will have me > to contend with. I never understood math professors who've never heard of the unit of measurement called "gross," nor English-speakers who mistake plural and possessive. > They can excel in their low life and I will excel in my > high life. >From a 'bent?? >We shall see who will be the more interesting to read in the end. I hope you pay them enough for their efforts! > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota You need to try that out in alt.christnet.christianlife!     Date: 09 Jan 2006 14:37:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136833394.337249.42350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> Yes, that is what I am here for, to advise all you dunderheads in cyber >> space on elementary good manners. If you would only emulate me, you could >> go >> to the head of the class and get a good k on your report card. >> >> 'NYC XYZ' tells us where you are from, but is it hardly a proper name. >> You >> will always be regarded as a ghost until you take on a name. Letters are >> not >> names. Elementary, my dear Watson! >> [...] > > Hmm...I think I'll just sign myself on as Edward Dolan from now on. No, I can do that but you can't. If you did it it would be plagiarism and forgery. You could go to jail for it. >> When you have aged properly and grown in wisdom and virtue, you will >> realize >> that Keillor is indeed the world's biggest bore and that Rush Limbaugh is >> a >> great entertainer, no matter what you might think of his politics. It all >> has to do with maturity. Good luck to you as I believe you do show some >> promise. But you will first have to get cured of your liberalism, a >> congenital disease of all New Yorkers, especially those from the City. >> [...] > > You obviously got it backwards. bush limhog is right on some things > politically, but as funny as a banana peel next to a caution sign. Well, he does drone on and on too much, but when he gets fired up he is quite entertaining. > Love Keillor's show this past weekend, where he talked about intolerant > liberals, the kind who hug trees and blacks and hispanics but won't > talk to you if you mispell. Keillor is OK in small doses, but he is poisonous if taken in large doses. [I am overlooking your misspelling of "misspell'. Also, 'hispanics' should be 'Hispanics', but I won't mention it if you won't.] [...] >> But more importantly I can come at various miscreants on Usenet from two >> directions, an assumed superiority of Greatness and an assumed >> superiority >> of Holiness. If others want to come across as low life's, they will have >> me >> to contend with. > > I never understood math professors who've never heard of the unit of > measurement called "gross," nor English-speakers who mistake plural and > possessive. 'lifes' just doesn't look right whereas 'life's' does. Just goes to show how misleading looks can be. [...] >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > You need to try that out in alt.christnet.christianlife! It is no fun to preach to the choir. My ministrations are needed on cycling groups, otherwise grossness takes over and there is one left but a bunch of slobs and lowlifes. I should really be getting paid for my services to the hoi polloi. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota PS. Get a name why don't you?   Date: 09 Jan 2006 08:18:59 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Peter Clinch wrote: > > > Actually, it can. A head with a helmet is bigger and heavier than one > without so more likely to get a head hit at all, and being bigger it > provides the extra leverage to add some interesting rotational leverage > to your neck and spine. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Well, it's a lesser-of-two-evils toss-up...I'll go with the horseback riding helmet that's light, got vents, and covers the back of the head, too, if I must wear one at these bike tours.   Date: 09 Jan 2006 08:16:07 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Yes, it is mainly young teenage farm girls who are into horse riding. They > especially like to do their thing at county fairs. Oh, I thought it was mainly middle-aged dads who find something irrresistible about a young girl riding a big horse. > I want Peter Clinch to stop telling us all about himself in his stupid > signature. LOL -- do you read his signature through each time he posts? Then how's he forcing his CV down your throat? > We only need to know one or two things about anyone on Usenet - > like maybe their name and where they are from. So what about them pervo ricons here in NYC that's got flags and boom-boxes all over their BIcycles? Now THAT's obnoxious! > You are remiss in the name > department yourself. Oh, do advise. > Usenent is a public forum that anyone can tune into if they want. Rules > govern how we should behave here. Old Pete is essentially spamming us for no > purpose. He is beneath contempt. Hehe...reminds me of the boy in kindergarten that insists he pulls the girl's pigtails 'cause he hates her so much.... > Well, yes, I need it for the occasional snakes and other critters you know. Oh, I thought it was for fishing. > I simply can't stand Keillor. He is absolutely the world's biggest bore, bar > none. ARE YOU NUTS? bush limhog is the biggest bore, and I actually agree with many of his evil repug prescriptions for a meaner society! > Besides that, he is the worst kind of liberal you can imagine. He > should have been a preacher. He surely is no entertainer. He sounds better than he looks...obviously a 'bent rider! Funny fella, though his "News from Lake Wobegone" is rather too often my least favorite part of the show. > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota A dash more disclosure than decorum dictates.     Date: 09 Jan 2006 12:37:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136823367.683310.40940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> We only need to know one or two things about anyone on Usenet - >> like maybe their name and where they are from. > > So what about them pervo ricons here in NYC that's got flags and > boom-boxes all over their BIcycles? Now THAT's obnoxious! > >> You are remiss in the name >> department yourself. > > Oh, do advise. Yes, that is what I am here for, to advise all you dunderheads in cyber space on elementary good manners. If you would only emulate me, you could go to the head of the class and get a good k on your report card. 'NYC XYZ' tells us where you are from, but is it hardly a proper name. You will always be regarded as a ghost until you take on a name. Letters are not names. Elementary, my dear Watson! [...] >> I simply can't stand Keillor. He is absolutely the world's biggest bore, >> bar >> none. > > ARE YOU NUTS? > > bush limhog is the biggest bore, and I actually agree with many of his > evil repug prescriptions for a meaner society! When you have aged properly and grown in wisdom and virtue, you will realize that Keillor is indeed the world's biggest bore and that Rush Limbaugh is a great entertainer, no matter what you might think of his politics. It all has to do with maturity. Good luck to you as I believe you do show some promise. But you will first have to get cured of your liberalism, a congenital disease of all New Yorkers, especially those from the City. [...] >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > A dash more disclosure than decorum dictates. I settled on my signature because of the obduracy of Peter Cinch and his idiotic signature, which no one ever objected to but me. I realized then and there that the more outrageous the signature, the better. I will be remembered on this newsgroup long after NYC XYZ has faded into the dust bin of history. But more importantly I can come at various miscreants on Usenet from two directions, an assumed superiority of Greatness and an assumed superiority of Holiness. If others want to come across as low life's, they will have me to contend with. They can excel in their low life and I will excel in my high life. We shall see who will be the more interesting to read in the end. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 15 Jan 2006 18:13:12 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Does this not tell us all we will ever have to know about this cretin from > NYC. He is into fucking Blacks. LMAO! -- from the guy who's idea of pussy is "meow meow meow." > Of course they are all Black prostitutes as > no self-respecting Black would have anything to do with a Jew bastard like > him. Jews are the most accomplished group next to the Chinee, who're next to take over. > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Now don't you go mouthing off to the Hmong 'bent riders up there!         Date: 15 Jan 2006 21:46:42 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137377592.512157.37050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> Does this not tell us all we will ever have to know about this cretin >> from >> NYC. He is into fucking Blacks. > > LMAO! -- from the guy who's idea of pussy is "meow meow meow." > >> Of course they are all Black prostitutes as >> no self-respecting Black would have anything to do with a Jew bastard >> like >> him. > > Jews are the most accomplished group next to the Chinee, who're next to > take over. > >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > Now don't you go mouthing off to the Hmong 'bent riders up there! fdhkldahauietrisadhkvcdsahfldsjfkl ksadfkaherhewdadkafkdsahfkdsah dsafdsfhkdshfkdshfkdsahfkhdsasf fdhdsafhdsafhkdshfksahdfkdshdf Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 03:22:51 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <GcOdnaV0LsU6PlzenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > > > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:86eqpd.57s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > >> In article <OfWdnbZoI92GTiPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> > >>> These RBM guys > >>> got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and hide. > >> > >> It's not us, it's you and your ugliness. I hate to be the one > >> to break it to you, but you've gotta sneak up on a glass of > >> water to get a drink. > >> > >> No wonder you're so into hats. > > > > I am still standing by waiting for you to say something intelligent. > > Y'know, I actually have much admiration for folks who design & build > their own 'bents. They're a creative and constructive lot. And > they're a bunch of nice, intelligent people, like Tom Sherman. > They have my respect.... Thanks for the compliment, but to clarify I have not built any bicycle, due to my "Red Green" level skills. Here is a site that shows that Ed Dolan of Worthington is (hopefully) the exception for Minnesotans: <http://mnhpva.org/MNbikes/builders.html >. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Jan 2006 14:51:55 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136805771.151322.121020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Tom Keats wrote: [...] >> Y'know, I actually have much admiration for folks who design & build >> their own 'bents. They're a creative and constructive lot. And >> they're a bunch of nice, intelligent people, like Tom Sherman. >> They have my respect.... > > Thanks for the compliment, but to clarify I have not built any bicycle, > due to my "Red Green" level skills. I have not yet decided whether Tom Keats is an idiot or not. Stay tuned, but in the meantime do not be too complimented. You must always consider the source. > Here is a site that shows that Ed Dolan of Worthington is (hopefully) > the exception for Minnesotans: > <http://mnhpva.org/MNbikes/builders.html>. I briefly met some of these guys once and they are great at what they do, but they do not do what the Great Ed Dolan does. They are fish and I am foul. I mean, there is just no comparison at all! I wonder whatever happened to k Stonich. He used to post on ARBR, but he has been gone for over a year now at least. No doubt he got fed up with us being off topic so much. I don't think he ever got off topic the least little bit ever. Very unlike me that way! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 00:54:42 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1136656054.556983.167300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca" <John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca > writes: > I believe that we should hold out for a return of the beaver fur hat > that was so popular many years ago. They are very elegant and they > would also provide us with an incentive to get rid of some of those > pesky little rodents. > > The hats in the 30's and 40's were okay but not up to earlier standards Actually, the underlayers of beaver fur was always favoured for the secondary manufacture of hat-making felt. Until it was discovered that sea otters' fur makes an even better felt. What is now known as British Columbia originated with the slaughter of so many sea otters so as to provide hats for Britain -- although the region had previously been partially explored & exploited by the Spanish and Russians. British Columbia history becomes quite interesting when one realizes it wasn't "discovered" by canoe-paddling, Scots-brogue-speaking HBC explorers sent out of Upper Canada, as so many school textbooks would have it. The indigenous Coastal folks seem to have preferred to make hats out of botanical stuff that one might also weave into bicycle baskets. 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 Jan 2006 20:54:10 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Johnny Sunset wrote: > John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: > > ... > > I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the > > key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give > > new meaning to the term "junk science". > > Without a h*lm*t, how do you keep the anti-mind-control foil on your > head? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley It's easy. You simply take two wire hangers and twi.. Just a minute there's a funny looking guy at the door... John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 07 Jan 2006 23:18:54 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:g0Dvf.3314$H37.501438@news20.bellglobal.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: > [...] > >> Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the > >> great out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know > >> this much at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about > >> the world uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. > >> > >> In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself > >> would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted > >> head. I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for > >> not wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put > >> SOMETHING on that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are > >> riding your bike. Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk > >> that you are. > >> > >> I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball > >> style of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the > >> world. Go back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing > >> on our blasted heads. > > > > I suppose that means we need to wear a wool suit, tie and spats, with > > Oxfords to go along with that fedora. I spend 6 months of the year > > wearing a touque outside, typically wear a ball cap during the summer, > > when being active. They keep the sun off your head, the sun out of your > > eyes, work well for keeping rain out of your eyes as well. > > I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown men. > Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and jerky. > > But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear blue > jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse we > dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of our > loathsome presence. > > I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked > like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone > forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old kids > with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really quite > laughable. I believe that we should hold out for a return of the beaver fur hat that was so popular many years ago. They are very elegant and they would also provide us with an incentive to get rid of some of those pesky little rodents. The hats in the 30's and 40's were okay but not up to earlier standards John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 09 Jan 2006 13:31:39 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca > wrote in message news:1136656054.556983.167300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked >> like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone >> forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old >> kids >> with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really quite >> laughable. > > I believe that we should hold out for a return of the beaver fur hat > that was so popular many years ago. They are very elegant and they > would also provide us with an incentive to get rid of some of those > pesky little rodents. > > The hats in the 30's and 40's were okay but not up to earlier standards > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada If I had my druthers, I would like to go back to the kind of hats that Abe Lincoln wore. I believe they were called stovepipes. No derbies or bowlers for me. Damn, those really were the good old days! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 09 Jan 2006 00:05:59 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <6-SdnQpykvjhAFzeRVn-oQ@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > You have to have a society in which charity can be operative. It is courage > which makes such a society possible. Otherwise, we would all be overrun by > Mongols and other assorted barbarians from the steppes of Central Asia. Yeah, the Mongolian Expeditionary Force is gearing up right now to airdrop (shaggy ponies 'n all) into Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. > Tom Keats benefits as much from the American military as do we Americans. > But, being Canadian, he does not share any of the burden. Canada is still cleaning up your stoopid mess in Afghanistan. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 09 Jan 2006 12:09:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:7h5tpd.mi01.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <6-SdnQpykvjhAFzeRVn-oQ@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> You have to have a society in which charity can be operative. It is >> courage >> which makes such a society possible. Otherwise, we would all be overrun >> by >> Mongols and other assorted barbarians from the steppes of Central Asia. > > Yeah, the Mongolian Expeditionary Force is gearing up right now > to airdrop (shaggy ponies 'n all) into Los Angeles, New York, > and Chicago. > >> Tom Keats benefits as much from the American military as do we Americans. >> But, being Canadian, he does not share any of the burden. > > Canada is still cleaning up your stoopid mess in Afghanistan. kjfdgkjfdfkdgkfdgkjdsafkadsfkjdshfhdsafkjah ajkfdfdgjkadshdgfdsafkjdsahfkhdsafjhdsfdsdf dsafhkdsahfdshfkdsahfkdsafhfkdsahfkdsfk dsafklsaewrshskdfhilasxccfdsakarhdskfk Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 08 Jan 2006 23:53:28 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <e-idnQ7hca17PlzeRVn-rw@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:fcdqpd.t5s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... >> In article <fc6dnY5UHdRD913eRVn-pA@prairiewave.com>, >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >>> And I am a Conservative >> >> Were you born that way, or did you suffer a head injury? > > adfhdsafhkjdsahfjklaafjdsafhdsahfkdsafkhdsakfhadfkas Well, /that/ answers my question. -- -- 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 Jan 2006 23:52:19 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <GcOdnaV0LsU6PlzenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:86eqpd.57s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... >> In article <OfWdnbZoI92GTiPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >>> These RBM guys >>> got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and hide. >> >> It's not us, it's you and your ugliness. I hate to be the one >> to break it to you, but you've gotta sneak up on a glass of >> water to get a drink. >> >> No wonder you're so into hats. > > I am still standing by waiting for you to say something intelligent. Y'know, I actually have much admiration for folks who design & build their own 'bents. They're a creative and constructive lot. And they're a bunch of nice, intelligent people, like Tom Sherman. They have my respect. Maybe get yourself an oversized 10-gallon Stetson. One that sits real low. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 09 Jan 2006 13:50:04 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:jn4tpd.6i01.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <GcOdnaV0LsU6PlzenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >> "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:86eqpd.57s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... >>> In article <OfWdnbZoI92GTiPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >>> >>>> These RBM guys >>>> got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and >>>> hide. >>> >>> It's not us, it's you and your ugliness. I hate to be the one >>> to break it to you, but you've gotta sneak up on a glass of >>> water to get a drink. >>> >>> No wonder you're so into hats. >> >> I am still standing by waiting for you to say something intelligent. > > Y'know, I actually have much admiration for folks who design & build > their own 'bents. They're a creative and constructive lot. And > they're a bunch of nice, intelligent people, like Tom Sherman. > They have my respect. I have built a couple of recumbents from scratch myself. They were Tour Easy's that I made from plans. But I would never do it again. It is way too much work. Another solution for saving a lot of money is to buy the frame and then build the bike from that point. Unless you are into welding and brazing, constructing a frame is more work than most of us bargain for. I do not believe Tom Sherman ever built a bike in his life. He is into pricey recumbents that he buys from manufacturers in the Twin Cities, at which point they promptly go out of business. > Maybe get yourself an oversized 10-gallon Stetson. > One that sits real low. I do not like to see grown men going hatless or wearing the baseball style of caps. Those options are for kids, not for dignified men of the world like Ed Dolan the Great. You need to picture me in a stovepipe style of hat to grasp my Greatness. What I would really like to do is to wear such a hat while pedaling my recumbent bicycle around town. But where can you get these kind of hats anymore? I think they have been relegated to the circus. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 08 Jan 2006 23:35:28 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <aaSdnTj0V99hP1zeRVn-ow@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: >>> Thank God for Fox News here in >>> America. >> >> Don't worry. We'll take that over, too. > > fdlsgjlsfdgjl;fdgjl;fdsjgl;fjds > dsafjdsajflkdsjfladsjfldsaj > dsahfjdslfjdfjfkdgjfdsjgldsgj > fkdsahfkhdsafhkdsafhkdsafjk You can quote your Howard Stern all you want. We're still not impressed. We're not even amused. -- -- 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 Jan 2006 16:33:11 From: Jim Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Could we please address more important issues like presta vs schrader and then move on to chain lube.     Date: 08 Jan 2006 17:49:50 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Jim" <jcgc50@cox.net > wrote in message news:eqgwf.111839$oG.44537@dukeread02... > Could we please address more important issues like presta vs schrader and > then move on to chain lube. This subject thread died and went to Hell quite some time ago. All that is going to happen from here on out is extreme off topic messages (thanks to me) and lots of idiotic invective from the peanut gallery (thanks to Tom Keats). Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 08 Jan 2006 18:03:45 From: Jim Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:wbmdnYfwnKG0OFzeRVn-hw@prairiewave.com... > > "Jim" <jcgc50@cox.net> wrote in message > news:eqgwf.111839$oG.44537@dukeread02... >> Could we please address more important issues like presta vs schrader and >> then move on to chain lube. > > This subject thread died and went to Hell quite some time ago. All that is > going to happen from here on out is extreme off topic messages (thanks to > me) and lots of idiotic invective from the peanut gallery (thanks to Tom > Keats). > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > Well hang in there, your posts are the only reason I am still reading this. Jim C   Date: 07 Jan 2006 23:15:20 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <OfWdnbZoI92GTiPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > These RBM guys > got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and hide. It's not us, it's you and your ugliness. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you've gotta sneak up on a glass of water to get a drink. No wonder you're so into hats. -- -- 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 Jan 2006 17:43:23 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:86eqpd.57s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <OfWdnbZoI92GTiPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> These RBM guys >> got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and hide. > > It's not us, it's you and your ugliness. I hate to be the one > to break it to you, but you've gotta sneak up on a glass of > water to get a drink. > > No wonder you're so into hats. I am still standing by waiting for you to say something intelligent. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 07 Jan 2006 23:01:35 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <fc6dnY5UHdRD913eRVn-pA@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > And I am a Conservative Were you born that way, or did you suffer a head injury? -- -- 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 Jan 2006 17:44:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:fcdqpd.t5s.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <fc6dnY5UHdRD913eRVn-pA@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> And I am a Conservative > > Were you born that way, or did you suffer a head injury? adfhdsafhkjdsahfjklaafjdsafhdsahfkdsafkhdsakfhadfkas Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 07 Jan 2006 20:29:59 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <37KdnYafqrNvE13eRVn-vA@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > They have all been very liberal without exception > and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. Thank you. > Thank God for Fox News here in > America. Don't worry. We'll take that over, too. -- -- 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 Jan 2006 17:40:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:7g4qpd.tir.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <37KdnYafqrNvE13eRVn-vA@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> They have all been very liberal without exception >> and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. > > Thank you. > >> Thank God for Fox News here in >> America. > > Don't worry. We'll take that over, too. fdlsgjlsfdgjl;fdgjl;fdsjgl;fjds dsafjdsajflkdsjfladsjfldsaj dsahfjdslfjdfjfkdgjfdsjgldsgj fkdsahfkhdsafhkdsafhkdsafjk Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 07 Jan 2006 20:24:13 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <R5GdnSYq4bdixF3enZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3p1opd.i4o.ln@vcn.bc.ca... >> In article <9YWdnYazosxn9SLenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: >> >>> The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money. >>> Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their >>> own >>> bikes? Of course not. >> >> You'd be surprised. You've gotcher tallbikes & chopperz -- >> things that are boldly in-yer-face, unlike your recessive, >> shy, shrinking-violet street luges that wanna get run over >> in the blind spots in front of cement trucks while you >> introvertedly avoid eye-contact or any other communication >> with fellow road users. Such self-wrapped cocoonery! > > The above is absurd. No upright cyclist builds their own bikes except for > extreme nut cases. <me, smugly chuckling > >>> That is because they have more brains than do we >>> recumbent cyclists. >> >> Not brains. Balls. > > Brains will win out over balls every time, Not when the 'brains' are deathly scared of being noticed. > except in case of war when you > really do require warriors, men who have balls and are willing to risk all. > Courage is the greatest of all virtues because it makes all other virtues ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, charity is; it extends beyond the grave. That's why I'm going easy on ya. If I die, I'll still continue to be charitable to you. You're stuck with me forever. > possible. That is why I respect the military. They are truly America's > finest. America's finest are the unsung people who do whatever they can to provide relief to tsunami/drought/earthquake/famine/whatever-stricken regions in the far-flung reaches of the world, as well as helping their own, domestic needy. America's finest are those who, in the spirit of international teamwork and interdependence, support the UN instead of whining about non-Americans "telling them what to do". America's finest are those who understand the difference between helpin' people and hurtin' 'em. America's finest don't trudge around other people's lands, wielding people-shootin' guns. -- -- 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 Jan 2006 17:17:01 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:d54qpd.bir.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <R5GdnSYq4bdixF3enZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: [...] >> Brains will win out over balls every time, > > Not when the 'brains' are deathly scared of being noticed. > >> except in case of war when you >> really do require warriors, men who have balls and are willing to risk >> all. >> Courage is the greatest of all virtues because it makes all other virtues > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Actually, charity is; it extends beyond the grave. That's why I'm > going easy on ya. If I die, I'll still continue to be charitable > to you. You're stuck with me forever. You have to have a society in which charity can be operative. It is courage which makes such a society possible. Otherwise, we would all be overrun by Mongols and other assorted barbarians from the steppes of Central Asia. >> possible. That is why I respect the military. They are truly America's >> finest. > > America's finest are the unsung people who do whatever they can to > provide relief to tsunami/drought/earthquake/famine/whatever-stricken > regions in the far-flung reaches of the world, as well as helping > their own, domestic needy. America's finest are those who, in the > spirit of international teamwork and interdependence, support the UN > instead of whining about non-Americans "telling them what to do". > America's finest are those who understand the difference between helpin' > people and hurtin' 'em. America's finest don't trudge around other > people's lands, wielding people-shootin' guns. All the above are bleeding heart liberals who do more damage than good in the world. They are as ineffectual as children and resemble children in many other respects as well. The world would be infinitely better off if all such types would like lemmings go to the sea and thereby perish. And I would say good riddance to the lot of them. What I like about the military is that they have become somewhat of a separate elite in our society. Because of them, the rest of us can get as rotten and corrupt as we please as long as we still have this elite military force to protect us. Tom Keats benefits as much from the American military as do we Americans. But, being Canadian, he does not share any of the burden. He is a weasel who does not pull his weight in the world. We Americans are quite right to look down on Canadians and to regard them with contempt. They are about on the level of the French, traitors to Western Civilization. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 07 Jan 2006 01:31:15 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <9YWdnYazosxn9SLenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money. > Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their own > bikes? Of course not. You'd be surprised. You've gotcher tallbikes & chopperz -- things that are boldly in-yer-face, unlike your recessive, shy, shrinking-violet street luges that wanna get run over in the blind spots in front of cement trucks while you introvertedly avoid eye-contact or any other communication with fellow road users. Such self-wrapped cocoonery! > That is because they have more brains than do we > recumbent cyclists. Not brains. Balls. Speaking of which -- you're not so great after all, are you? -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 07 Jan 2006 18:16:53 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:3p1opd.i4o.ln@vcn.bc.ca... > In article <9YWdnYazosxn9SLenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@prairiewave.com>, > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> writes: > >> The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money. >> Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their >> own >> bikes? Of course not. > > You'd be surprised. You've gotcher tallbikes & chopperz -- > things that are boldly in-yer-face, unlike your recessive, > shy, shrinking-violet street luges that wanna get run over > in the blind spots in front of cement trucks while you > introvertedly avoid eye-contact or any other communication > with fellow road users. Such self-wrapped cocoonery! The above is absurd. No upright cyclist builds their own bikes except for extreme nut cases. >> That is because they have more brains than do we >> recumbent cyclists. > > Not brains. Balls. Brains will win out over balls every time, except in case of war when you really do require warriors, men who have balls and are willing to risk all. Courage is the greatest of all virtues because it makes all other virtues possible. That is why I respect the military. They are truly America's finest. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 22:13:41 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Mike Rice wrote: > ... > I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has > claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood, > having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin)... Do you have DEFINITIVE PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of Ed Gin's involvement? There are many Monkeys on The Island, and some have never posted using their real names. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 07 Jan 2006 18:38:29 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136614420.978820.139640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Mike Rice wrote: >> ... >> I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has >> claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood, >> having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin)... > > Do you have DEFINITIVE PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of Ed Gin's > involvement? > > There are many Monkeys on The Island, and some have never posted using > their real names. Mr. McNamra of ARBR has told us we will ever have to know about who is who in that execrable gathering of scum recumbent cyclists from that shit hole known as Chicagoland (Monkey Island). If they post not using their real names, what the hell else do we ever have to know about them. They are scum and so are you for having any association with them. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 07 Jan 2006 10:19:03 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On 6 Jan 2006 22:13:41 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > >Mike Rice wrote: >> ... >> I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has >> claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood, >> having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin)... > >Do you have DEFINITIVE PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of Ed Gin's >involvement? > >There are many Monkeys on The Island, and some have never posted using >their real names. Ooh-Ooh-Ooh! I stand corrected. I freely admit I have only the most minor suspicion as to Mr. Gin's collusion with Mr. Dolan in this regard. I have personally never met either of the gentlemen in question, and only mentioned them in the same breath in hopes of stirring up our very prolific resident thorn. How many times are you going to ask me for this proof? I get awfully tired of your sidestepping the real issue at hand, you know. I've been locked in this windowless room with no doors for so long that I have forgotten whatever the butler did anyway. The gun is still smoking. Indiana Mike   Date: 06 Jan 2006 19:21:21 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: > ... > I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the > key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give > new meaning to the term "junk science". Without a h*lm*t, how do you keep the anti-mind-control foil on your head? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 06 Jan 2006 12:45:57 From: Olebiker Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Hayvern wrote: > I have a nice 3 inch scar in my forehead from a bicycle crash in 1977. > This scar would have been avoided had I been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I > look like a dork, but 25 stitches in my forehead was not a lot of fun > either. I took a bad fall several years ago and bounced my helmeted head off the pavement hard enough to break the helmet. I am quite grateful that the helmet absorbed some of the impact my head would have had I not been wearing a helmet. My scalp is also grateful that it did not have to be abraded by the blacktop. If some folks want to ride without helmets, they should have the right to do so without the government telling them otherwise. As for me, my helmets are light enough that I hardly notice them and my experience has proven to me that they do provide a level of protection that I am glad to have. Dick Durbin     Date: 07 Jan 2006 19:28:52 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Olebiker" <ddurbin@tfn.net > wrote in message news:1136580357.866447.311790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Hayvern wrote: >> I have a nice 3 inch scar in my forehead from a bicycle crash in 1977. >> This scar would have been avoided had I been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I >> look like a dork, but 25 stitches in my forehead was not a lot of fun >> either. > > I took a bad fall several years ago and bounced my helmeted head off > the pavement hard enough to break the helmet. I am quite grateful that > the helmet absorbed some of the impact my head would have had I not > been wearing a helmet. My scalp is also grateful that it did not have > to be abraded by the blacktop. > > If some folks want to ride without helmets, they should have the right > to do so without the government telling them otherwise. As for me, my > helmets are light enough that I hardly notice them and my experience > has proven to me that they do provide a level of protection that I am > glad to have. > > Dick Durbin Dick, your story has been told thousands of times but the anti-helmet crowd does not want to hear it. I am convinced they are against helmets because they do not want to muss up their hair. That is how shallow they are. Your last paragraph leaps out at me. I do not mind the government telling me what is best for me. I see that as a proper function of government. The government does this sort of thing with regard to a thousand and one items that impact our lives and it does it for our own protection, safety and well being. I see nothing wrong at all in the government telling us all kinds of things provided of course that that government is democratically elected and our Constitution remains in effect. And I am a Conservative but, as you might guess, not a Libertarian! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 10:17:05 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? HH wrote: > > > Thank you so much sharing your your accurate data and for straightening me > out on this issue. Most of the data I' ve posted recently has been in the thread " Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark" on r.b.misc. (Yes, the thread was diverted into a helmet discussion.) But if there's data you want, let me know. Alternately, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and get good data, with citations of the original papers plus extensive discussion. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 06 Jan 2006 10:12:01 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? HH wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1136529711.940910.238170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > > HH wrote: > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1136495422.505107.72690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> <snip> > >> > > >> ... On the other hand I generally don't read > >> helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of > >> statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about. > > > > Nor the accurate data, obviously. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > > Thank you so much sharing your your accurate data and for straightening me > out on this issue. I suspect that Frank was being a bit sarcastic because all too often a helmet zealot claims that he/she (or sometimes it?) claims that "A helmet saved my life" and transfered it to the gravel in the hair statement. It is quite likely that a helmet may protect against minor scrapes and gravel hair (TM) but there is no reason to think that a piece of flimsy styrofoam is going to do any real good in a serious crash. The population level statistics from Australia and New Zealand are pretty clear on this. Mandatory helmet use (enforced) in Australia increased injury rates while in NZ a study before a mandatory law came into effect managed to show that increasing helmet usage voluntarily (from about 20-30 % to about 80% IIRC) did not reduce head injury rates. A study in Canada about 3 years ago managed to show that an enforced MHL reduced head injuries by almost 50% Unforunately the authors didn't seem to notice that their own figures also showed that the number of cyclists had declined by about 60%. If you are interested in the topic have a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ (very good source of information but definately not in favour of mandatory helmet legislation) and http://www.bhsi.org/ (As far as I can see mainly propoganda but it may have some useful information) a definately pro-mandatory helmet legislation site. At the moment most of the research that is used to support a mandatory helmet legislation stand is, to use a technical term, pretty crappy. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 06 Jan 2006 22:40:15 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <HrednaalY5MMwSLenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@prairiewave.com >, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > writes: > If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for > instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman > to the woodshed. Yeah, fantasy can be so grueling. > I am tired of doing that, Scared-y cat. > so I won't bother going to his > links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal > vandal troll who destroyed ARBR). > > Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never > understood. It's understandable that humour escapes you. > Regards, Be fruitful, multiply, and go forth. While you're at it, I suggest designing/building yourself a real recumbent instead of buying that off-the-shelf, pre-made,stock stuff that inept lusers such as yourself resort to. Maybe it'll help improve your self-image. Especially if you can ride it around the block without tbe wheels falling off in the first hundred yards. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 07 Jan 2006 01:08:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:fonnpd.cgn.ln@vcn.bc.ca... [...] > While you're at it, I suggest designing/building yourself > a real recumbent instead of buying that off-the-shelf, > pre-made,stock stuff that inept lusers such as yourself > resort to. Maybe it'll help improve your self-image. > Especially if you can ride it around the block without > tbe wheels falling off in the first hundred yards. You bet, nothing like reinventing the wheel. That is what idiots do all the time. The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their own bikes? Of course not. That is because they have more brains than do we recumbent cyclists. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 19:47:07 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? HH wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... > <snip> > . > > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. > > <snip> > > I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and a > barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet > threads. > > Tough crowd in the recumbent room. See <http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/save-recumbent-community-join-lamfra.html > for one person's opinion. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 07 Jan 2006 00:15:36 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136605627.872402.167640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > HH wrote: >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... >> <snip> >> . >> > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. >> >> <snip> >> >> I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage >> and a >> barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet >> threads. >> >> Tough crowd in the recumbent room. > > See > <http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/save-recumbent-community-join-lamfra.html> > for one person's opinion. ;) If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman to the woodshed. I am tired of doing that, so I won't bother going to his links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal vandal troll who destroyed ARBR). Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never understood. Truth to tell I am not amused by anything anymore. That is for kids and dunces. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 07 Jan 2006 10:28:44 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:15:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1136605627.872402.167640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> HH wrote: >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>> news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... >>> <snip> >>> . >>> > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage >>> and a >>> barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet >>> threads. >>> >>> Tough crowd in the recumbent room. >> >> See >> <http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/save-recumbent-community-join-lamfra.html> >> for one person's opinion. ;) > >If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for >instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman >to the woodshed. I am tired of doing that, so I won't bother going to his >links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal >vandal troll who destroyed ARBR). > >Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never >understood. Truth to tell I am not amused by anything anymore. That is for >kids and dunces. > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the (snipped) Since I know you won't look at this, and I think yuou might apprecriate this particular item I will describe it for you, Ed. This page has nothing offensive, only an invitation to join LAMFRA. It appears to be a flyer, legend reads: "Sick of loudmouth fascistswith frozen brains ruining the recumbent community with their crybaby whining and right wing diatribes? You are not alone." appearing above a graphic with the slashed circle in red over a figure with an upraised fist riding a recumbent, and wearing a hat emblazoned with a swastika. Beneath the image reads: "join LAMFRA: Lowracers Against Minnesota Fascist Recumbent Assholes" Indiana Mike         Date: 07 Jan 2006 18:28:33 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:6f5vr1hdvmbimqcdr45qb72cobqbt1jba8@4ax.com... [...] > Since I know you won't look at this, and I think yuou might > apprecriate this particular item I will describe it for you, Ed. > > This page has nothing offensive, only an invitation to join LAMFRA. It > appears to be a flyer, legend reads: > "Sick of loudmouth fascistswith frozen brains ruining the recumbent > community with their crybaby whining and right wing diatribes? You are > not alone." appearing above a graphic with the slashed circle in red > over a figure with an upraised fist riding a recumbent, and wearing a > hat emblazoned with a swastika. > > Beneath the image reads: > "join LAMFRA: Lowracers Against Minnesota Fascist Recumbent Assholes" > > Indiana Mike No, I do not mind reading what you have written and Mr. Sherman could just as easily have written it as you. I refuse to go to links that are not described in sufficient detail first. That is a fool's errand. Ed Gin and Associates are criminal vandal trolls. They do not engage in conversation like you and I do. They post their garbage and then run and hide behind proxies. Screw them all the way to Hell and back! A respectable person would not be caught dead looking at any of their crapola. Jim McNaa of ARBR has already told us everything we will ever have to know about them. They are monkeys (Monkey Island) and all they do is sling poo. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 19:38:46 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote: > ... > Helmet manufacturers, their trade associations, and the "safety" > societies they donate big money to (like, for example, Safe Kids Inc.) > have falsely portrayed ordinary cycling as a tremendous source of > serious head injuries. Don't fall for it. Pun intended? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 06 Jan 2006 19:34:53 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Peter Clinch wrote: > ... > One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different > performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be > slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a > problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy > circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at > a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to > speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you > can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group. > Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though. The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill. I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning" if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on an uphill section. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Jan 2006 14:34:28 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1136604893.850825.13660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, Johnny Sunset (sunsetss0003@yahoo.com) wrote: > The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of > upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane > when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on > an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill. > I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning" > if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on > an uphill section. In much of my riding, anything more than single file makes it difficult to get past. Though I did manage to scare the cr*p out of a couple of lads going down towards Compton Abdale yesterday (as well as dropping one of them going up the other side). -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once. I haven't been able to leave the house since.     Date: 07 Jan 2006 00:22:25 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136604893.850825.13660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Peter Clinch wrote: >> ... >> One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different >> performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be >> slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a >> problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy >> circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at >> a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to >> speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you >> can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group. >> Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though. > > The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of > upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane > when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on > an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill. > I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning" > if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on > an uphill section. Recumbent cyclists like to go as fast as they can downhill to make up for their turtle pace going uphill. However, no matter how fast recumbents go downhill, they can never make it up. They will inevitably fall behind uprights. If you aren't fast going uphill, you are not in the game. Elementary, my dear Watson! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 19:16:23 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of > helmetless riders? > > Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no? > I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the > ground as it is.... > > I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why > not wear a real helmet? > > Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and > lighter than styrofoam? I want skid plates for my hips and elbows, so I can get really crazy on a lowracer! I remember some moron crashing my Red Sunset on a slippery tight corner seeing how fast he could do parking lot laps at the Chicagoland holiday recumbent party a couple of years ago and getting a bruised hip. Hey wait, that was me! ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:46:54 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: > > > This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level > > of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the > > propaganda is in written form may be true :) > > It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the > difference between causation and correlation. But if your highly educated riders wore helmets because they thought that helmets were protecting them it suggests that they were buying the propaganada for, as you are (or should be anyway) aware, most studies other than junk science like the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (1989) do not support the premise that helmets prevent injuries. > > Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with > logical thought. Oh you have read TR&T '89. Well done. I hope you noticed the OR's for the 'control' groups comparisons. Embarassing that something that bad was published isn't it? > A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law > was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding > of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not > fall for. Strangely enough our statement seems to show that you do not understand the nature of statistical correlation or the nature of scientific proof. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I > found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not > sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really > has fallen for the junk science. No I suspect like me he has actually read and understood the reseach. And to use the dreaded anecdote :) I have been damn near killed or seriously injured because I was wearing a helmet when cycling. They may have their uses, possibly in aggressive off-road riding which I don't do but I find that they are really too dangerous to wear under normal circumstances. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 06 Jan 2006 12:35:54 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca > wrote in message news:1136569614.734111.120390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > SMS wrote: >> John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: >> >> > This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level >> > of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the >> > propaganda is in written form may be true :) >> >> It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the >> difference between causation and correlation. > > But if your highly educated riders wore helmets because they thought > that helmets were protecting them it suggests that they were buying the > propaganada for, as you are (or should be anyway) aware, most studies > other than junk science like the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (1989) > do not support the premise that helmets prevent injuries. It is always best to follow what highly educated people are doing and not what morons and ignorant slobs are doing. Elementary, my dear Watson! [...] >> A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law >> was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding >> of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not >> fall for. > > Strangely enough our statement seems to show that you do not > understand the nature of statistical correlation or the nature of > scientific proof. No one, least of all John Kane of the Tricolour, knows anything at all about statistics. This is a well known scientific fact. > I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I >> found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not >> sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really >> has fallen for the junk science. > > No I suspect like me he has actually read and understood the reseach. > And to use the dreaded anecdote :) I have been damn near killed or > seriously injured because I was wearing a helmet when cycling. They > may have their uses, possibly in aggressive off-road riding which I > don't do but I find that they are really too dangerous to wear under > normal circumstances. > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada Anecdotal evidence counts too! The number of cyclists who believe they have been saved from serious harm by wearing a helmet is too overwhelming to be ignored except by dunderheads like yourself. You really should just shut up as you may very well be contributing to the future death of some poor slob who is actually listening to your nonsense. The best thing that John Kane of the Tricolour could do is to immerse himself in an Emergency Room for a year or so. There he would discover that cycling without a helmet makes about as much sense as driving a car without a seat belt. But who are you going to listen to, these freaks who don't believe in helmets or the overwhelming consensus of experts who advise us to wear a helmet when cycling. I am convinced that these freaks who do not like helmets do not like them because it musses up their hair. They imagine that their hair is more important than their lives. And they may well be right about that. I mean, just what kind of folks are these anyway who counsel death and destruction. They should all be taken out and given a good thrashing. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:07:28 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the great > out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know this much > at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about the world > uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. > > In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself > would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted head. > I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for not > wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put SOMETHING on > that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are riding your bike. > Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk that you are. > > I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball style > of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the world. Go > back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing on our > blasted heads. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Have you ever thought of doing something about your name? Krygowski looks > dumb. It is way too Slavic. All the Slavic languages are an abomination. I > don't know which is worse, Polish or Russian. The sooner the world gets > Anglicized and Americanized, the better. Why not do something useful > (instead of blathering about bike helmets) and get a name change. All those > consonants look ridiculous. God only knows how it is pronounced. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Oh, I see now. <PLONK > - Frank Krygowski     Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:24:46 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On 6 Jan 2006 09:07:28 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: (snip) >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > >Oh, I see now. > ><PLONK> > >- Frank Krygowski Now you've done it Frank. The man behind the curtain detests those who use kill files. He may even add your name to the list he trots out when he expouses on the subject. And yes, I know just how much his opinion will bother you. I just hope you will be able to sleep at night, knowing the trouble you've caused. Indiana Mike     Date: 06 Jan 2006 11:43:09 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136567248.165371.198770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the >> great >> out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know this >> much >> at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about the world >> uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. >> >> In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself >> would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted >> head. >> I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for not >> wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put SOMETHING >> on >> that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are riding your >> bike. >> Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk that you are. >> >> I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball >> style >> of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the world. Go >> back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing on our >> blasted heads. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> Have you ever thought of doing something about your name? Krygowski looks >> dumb. It is way too Slavic. All the Slavic languages are an abomination. >> I >> don't know which is worse, Polish or Russian. The sooner the world gets >> Anglicized and Americanized, the better. Why not do something useful >> (instead of blathering about bike helmets) and get a name change. All >> those >> consonants look ridiculous. God only knows how it is pronounced. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > > Oh, I see now. > > <PLONK> > > - Frank Krygowski Ah! My first conquest on RBM. Thank God that moron is gone from here. Now I can tell the rest of you what I think of his imbecilic messages without any interference from him. That is ever the fate of kill filers - dumb unto death. His name is such that it is a wonder to me that he can even spell it correctly, but how would any of the rest of us know. I will refer to him as Frank K. since I am not going dither over all those ridiculous consonants. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:30:40 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:43:09 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: (snip) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>> aka >>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> >> Oh, I see now. >> >> <PLONK> >> >> - Frank Krygowski > >Ah! My first conquest on RBM. > ... >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood, having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin) drained most of the life from our home stomping grounds, ARBR. Now if he would only go for the challenge and start haunting only your group! As he would say, 'Oh happy day!' Indiana Mike         Date: 06 Jan 2006 15:09:31 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:uhktr1lo6aapn1vivtv0efsdfe7qa05d9h@4ax.com... [...] > I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has > claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood, > having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin) drained > most of the life from our home stomping grounds, ARBR. > > Now if he would only go for the challenge and start haunting only your > group! As he would say, 'Oh happy day!' > > Indiana Mike I think a bit of cross posting to RBM is OK as long as it is not recumbent specific. After all, we are all into recreational cycling. That is the main thing, not what kind of bike we ride. Mr. Sherman of ARBR could perhaps advise us if these two groups are compatible with one another. One other item. ARBR has been pretty much destroyed due to a criminal vandal troll. By cross-posting we will get some new blood into ARBR and that will have the effect of diluting the criminal posting that is going on there. Normally, I remain very opposed to any cross-posting. But it may be the only thing that will save ARBR. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota PS. Mike of Indiana does not really want me to leave ARBR. Hells Bells, I am just about the only one he responds to as far as I can tell. That is because I have the knack of saying interesting things in an interesting way. Quality will win out every time. But Great Ones like Ed Dolan need and appreciate a reader like Mike of Indiana.   Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:01:52 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? gds wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling > > is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor > > vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is > > roughly 40% of the problem. > > > > Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source? I'd have to really dig for part of it, and I'm not where my reference papers are. But here's what I recall. The "50%, 40%" and a few other figures came from some head injury website. It was in the form of a simple graph. I dug that out about five years ago. The "1%" (for bicyclists) came by putting together two sources. One was a paper published as a chapter in a book on head injury - in fact, I think the title was just "Head Injury." The chapter was an attempt to get an accurate estimate of the number of HI injuries and fatalities in the US. See, it turns out there is no official count, and estimates vary widely. For example, the number of fatalities due to head injury has been estimated at everything from about 50,000 to about 115,000. The author of that paper compared about seven different sources, examined their methods, and put his best estimate at 56,000 (IIRC). It was toward the low end of the range. That gives a number we can use with cyclist data. NHTSA gives reliable counts of fatalties for motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists every year. The counts have been running about 750 or so for the past few years. (Check their website, and search under "pedalcyclists.") Now, one piece of propaganda that's frequently read is that "75% of bicycle fatalities involve head injury!!!" (BTW, the figure is above 70% for pedestrians too, and I once saw data that claimed that was true for _all_ accidental deaths.) I've learned to be skeptical about such fear-mongering. If a cyclist has his chest run over by a bus and also gets a scratch on his forehead, that fatality "involves" a head injury. But still: If we generously accept that figure, then there are 0.75 * 750 = 563 cyclist fatlities due to head injury per year in the US, out of 56,000 total head injury fatalities. That puts cycling at 1%. In the end, the 50% and 40% are less important in my mind, which is why I haven't bothered getting perfect details on them. The important thing is, 99% of the head injury fatality problem has nothing to do with cycling. Only 1% (probably less) is due to cycling. If you like, I'll give complete citations for the Head Injury book and its chapter on head injury epidemiology when I'm back at my files. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 06 Jan 2006 06:56:36 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > I like to wear a horse riding kind of helmet for my recumbent cycling. They > look sharp, you can fit them perfectly and they are not expensive. Most bike > helmets these days are for racers and look just awful. Esthetics count after > all. I don't think they look bad as helmets -- I just think they look bad on me! Makes me look like a cartoon mushroom (hey, you shoulda seen me in my Army days -- people thought I looked like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle!). Horseback riding helmets sound like a good idea. Funny how that sport seems so female, though. > Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this? Well, I guess you do, since you've been asking and asking! > It has nothing to > do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about > himself. Well, how's that any different from customizing your 'bent with decals and such? > Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know > who I am. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota Do riders carry rifles up there? Just in case they see a deer or a car or something. ^_^ > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Ah, you're that "Prairie Home Companion" regular, huh?     Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:13:19 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136559395.954505.142620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] > Horseback riding helmets sound like a good idea. Funny how that sport > seems so female, though. Yes, it is mainly young teenage farm girls who are into horse riding. They especially like to do their thing at county fairs. >> Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this? > > Well, I guess you do, since you've been asking and asking! I want Peter Clinch to stop telling us all about himself in his stupid signature. We only need to know one or two things about anyone on Usenet - like maybe their name and where they are from. You are remiss in the name department yourself. >> It has nothing to >> do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about >> himself. > > Well, how's that any different from customizing your 'bent with decals > and such? Usenent is a public forum that anyone can tune into if they want. Rules govern how we should behave here. Old Pete is essentially spamming us for no purpose. He is beneath contempt. >> Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know >> who I am. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > Do riders carry rifles up there? Just in case they see a deer or a car > or something. ^_^ Well, yes, I need it for the occasional snakes and other critters you know. >> aka >> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > Ah, you're that "Prairie Home Companion" regular, huh? I simply can't stand Keillor. He is absolutely the world's biggest bore, bar none. Besides that, he is the worst kind of liberal you can imagine. He should have been a preacher. He surely is no entertainer. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 15 Jan 2006 15:27:21 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > > But we will never know what you said in the first place because you have > edited it out of all your posts. Not my fault if you don't know whether you're coming or going. > You insult the reader when you do this. You can print it out and call it macroni and cheese for all anyone cares -- your taste buds, your brain. > After all, we are not just writing to one another. This is a newsgroup, not > email. Last I heard, you had been roundly rejected as newsgroup moderator, so forgive me if I look askance at this pretense to public service. > I doubt it, but there is some mystery here apparently. > [...] Anyone that obssessed with "World Jewry" has got to be a closet Jew. Kinda like how if we scratch you past the surface, we'll find a slobbering liberal wannabe who got rejected by a half-joo negress back in high school. > I will no longer respond to one-liners except for those very few which will > give me an opportunity to wax eloquent on subjects of my own choosing. LOL -- try talking about recumbent bicycles, then! > After all, I have readers I must consider even if you don't. One-liners are > for idiots, not for Great Ones like myself. At what weight did you decide to style yourself a great one? > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota So you wear a Viking helmet when you ride?         Date: 15 Jan 2006 18:45:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137367641.448224.159080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [...] > Kinda like how if we scratch you past the surface, we'll find a > slobbering liberal wannabe who got rejected by a half-joo negress back > in high school. Does this not tell us all we will ever have to know about this cretin from NYC. He is into fucking Blacks. Of course they are all Black prostitutes as no self-respecting Black would have anything to do with a Jew bastard like him. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 05 Jan 2006 22:41:51 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? HH wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1136495422.505107.72690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > <snip> > > > > And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling > > is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor > > vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is > > roughly 40% of the problem. > > > <snip snip snip> > > Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries > because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets? No, for the simple reasons that most localities do NOT mandate the wearing of helmets. In fact, except for Australia and New Zealand, very few do except for kids. And in the US, even the laws for kids are generally ignored. > ... On the other hand I generally don't read > helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of > statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about. Nor the accurate data, obviously. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 06 Jan 2006 11:18:09 From: HH Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136529711.940910.238170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > HH wrote: >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1136495422.505107.72690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> <snip> >> > >> ... On the other hand I generally don't read >> helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of >> statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about. > > Nor the accurate data, obviously. > > - Frank Krygowski > Thank you so much sharing your your accurate data and for straightening me out on this issue.       Date: 09 Jan 2006 09:48:28 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Sorni wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > SMS wrote: > >> > >> > >> Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. > >> Now all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening > >> accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't > >> miss it. > > > > Apparently the concept of comparative risk is _way_ beyond you, > > Steven! > > Heard ya the first time. > > (Anyone else getting lots of multiple posts lately?!?) What it looks like from this end is: Click "Post message"; long, long wait; error message from Google saying something like "Sorry, there was a server problem" or such; click "Post message again"; and (eventually) two posts appear.         Date: 09 Jan 2006 14:14:37 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136828908.740801.256640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Sorni wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> > SMS wrote: [...] >> (Anyone else getting lots of multiple posts lately?!?) > > What it looks like from this end is: Click "Post message"; long, long > wait; error message from Google saying something like "Sorry, there > was a server problem" or such; click "Post message again"; and > (eventually) two posts appear. It is OK to sign your name. Just go with Frank K. as I know it is a lot of work to plow through all those consonants in your last name. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 08 Jan 2006 12:20:15 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > > > Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. Now > all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening > accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't miss it. Apparently the concept of comparative risk is _way_ beyond you, Steven! - Frank Krygowski       Date: 08 Jan 2006 12:21:09 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > > > Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. Now > all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening > accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't miss it. Apparently the concept of comparative risk is _way_ beyond you, Steven! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 09 Jan 2006 12:06:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136751669.565212.162470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > SMS wrote: >> >> >> Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. Now >> all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening >> accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't miss >> it. > > Apparently the concept of comparative risk is _way_ beyond you, Steven! > > - Frank Krygowski Yeah, it is way beyond me too. I have never in my life understood people who cannot differentiate between an apple and an orange. I think what is required is some thinking in the first place as to what is being compared with what. If you neglect this very elementary procedure of making meaningful discriminations, you can end up with all kinds of foolish comparisons which only fools will fall for. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:39:21 From: Sorni Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > SMS wrote: >> >> >> Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. >> Now all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening >> accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't >> miss it. > > Apparently the concept of comparative risk is _way_ beyond you, > Steven! Heard ya the first time. (Anyone else getting lots of multiple posts lately?!?)       Date: 07 Jan 2006 06:37:03 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Mike Rice wrote: > I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who > suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and > will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent. I have a relative that is also a PT, and she's has the same perspective. However I don't believe that doctors or PT's, who only deal with the injured patients, have a balanced view. It's fine for them to explain how helmets reduce the severity of head injuries, and certainly the ER and accident data shows this to be beyond question, but the number of such injuries is sufficiently low that compulsion, at least for adults, is not warranted. It's better to approach the issue through education, which will not alienate people. Ironically the biggest contribution toward more compulsion is the rash of junk science papers and articles generated by the anti-compulsion forces. The medical community feels obliged to respond in some way, and they have the respectability that is necessary to get the compulsion laws pushed through.       Date: 06 Jan 2006 11:31:15 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "HH" <HH@bigpicture.com > wrote in message news:bpSdnbRsIO_dOyPeRVn-og@comcast.com... > > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1136529711.940910.238170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> HH wrote: >>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1136495422.505107.72690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> <snip> >>> > >>> ... On the other hand I generally don't read >>> helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of >>> statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about. >> >> Nor the accurate data, obviously. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > > Thank you so much sharing your your accurate data and for straightening me > out on this issue. The only accurate data Frank K. is in charge of is the buzzing in his own head. I think there is a fly inside there and it is causing him to babble senselessly about helmets. Anyone who takes any of this helmet vs. no helmet crap seriously has got rocks in their heads. One thing is for sure, we cyclists are way too stupid to ever figure it out. I give you Frank K. as an example of the subspecies - Homo cyclist stupidus. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:35:32 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:31:15 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >Anyone who takes any of this helmet vs. no helmet crap seriously has got >rocks in their heads. One thing is for sure, we cyclists are way too stupid >to ever figure it out. I give you Frank K. as an example of the subspecies - >Homo cyclist stupidus. > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > Ed, you've hit the nail on the (helmeted) head here! We need to wear styro hats while cycling, and really should at all times, if for no other reason than to keep those rocks on the inside where they belong. Indiana MIke           Date: 06 Jan 2006 14:51:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:1vktr1hko1ck8aqf41enhkrctnvkgut3hs@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:31:15 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > >> >>Anyone who takes any of this helmet vs. no helmet crap seriously has got >>rocks in their heads. One thing is for sure, we cyclists are way too >>stupid >>to ever figure it out. I give you Frank K. as an example of the >>subspecies - >>Homo cyclist stupidus. >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>aka >>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> >> > > Ed, you've hit the nail on the (helmeted) head here! > > We need to wear styro hats while cycling, and really should at all > times, if for no other reason than to keep those rocks on the inside > where they belong. > > Indiana MIke Yes, Mike, to go about bareheaded is uncivilized as well as being uncouth. Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. What is the world coming to, I ask you. Well, I don't know about you, but I am going to leave this vale of tears soon where gentlemen such as myself can no longer wear a man's HAT. Screw these ridiculous baseball caps all the way to Hell and back! They are for nerdy teenagers, not for Great Ones like Ed Dolan. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota             Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:11:54 From: HH Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... <snip > . > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. <snip > I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and a barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet threads. Tough crowd in the recumbent room.               Date: 07 Jan 2006 02:48:24 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:11:54 -0600, "HH" <HH@bigpicture.com > wrote: > >"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... ><snip> >. >> Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. > ><snip> > >I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and a >barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet >threads. > >Tough crowd in the recumbent room. > Not really tough crowd, just one crusty coot behind the curtain doiing his best to scare off the villagers. ARBR has been at a low ebb, you'll not often find a crowd there as of late. Indiana Mike                 Date: 07 Jan 2006 00:02:08 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:5taur11o9godl610vbugsp8g4bimk3mh49@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:11:54 -0600, "HH" <HH@bigpicture.com> wrote: > >> >>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >>news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... >><snip> >>. >>> Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. >> >><snip> >> >>I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and >>a >>barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet >>threads. >> >>Tough crowd in the recumbent room. >> > > Not really tough crowd, just one crusty coot behind the curtain doiing > his best to scare off the villagers. ARBR has been at a low ebb, > you'll not often find a crowd there as of late. > > Indiana Mike I am enlivening the group which would otherwise expire of terminal boredom. ARBR has been done in by a criminal vandal troll. That is because most of us on ARBR are elderly men who do not have much stomach for combat. As you can so plainly see, I am the exception. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:42:36 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "HH" <HH@bigpicture.com > wrote in message news:ovudnWaIbamEdiPeRVn-rQ@comcast.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... > <snip> > . >> Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. > > <snip> > > I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and > a barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet > threads. > > Tough crowd in the recumbent room. By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect committing murder by proxy. Their thinking is all based on junk science which they do not have the brains to see through. It is just so damn disgusting see this kind of crap. And it is always the same old crowd who clamor against helmets no matter what cycling newsgroup you go to. It is better to just call them what they are and let it go at that. And what are they? They are murderers by proxy. We need to keep in mind that newsgroups are just chock full of idiots and morons who somehow learned to write a sentence or two but never did learn how to think about anything. A little learning is a dangerous thing and fools indeed most certainly do rush in where angels fear to tread. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 07 Jan 2006 02:59:38 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"HH" <HH@bigpicture.com> wrote in message >news:ovudnWaIbamEdiPeRVn-rQ@comcast.com... >> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:SvidnXImf9DQRSPeRVn-hA@prairiewave.com... >> <snip> >> . >>> Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low. >> >> <snip> >> >> I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and >> a barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet >> threads. >> >> Tough crowd in the recumbent room. > >By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect >committing murder by proxy. Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don your foil lined stryfoam hat. I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats. I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright, of course I have riden much more since making the chage as well. Most of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come close to hitting my head on anything. My h*lmet has trapped a wasp resulting in an uncomfortable sting on the scalp, however. Indiana Mike >Their thinking is all based on junk science >which they do not have the brains to see through. It is just so damn >disgusting see this kind of crap. And it is always the same old crowd who >clamor against helmets no matter what cycling newsgroup you go to. It is >better to just call them what they are and let it go at that. And what are >they? They are murderers by proxy. > >We need to keep in mind that newsgroups are just chock full of idiots and >morons who somehow learned to write a sentence or two but never did learn >how to think about anything. A little learning is a dangerous thing and >fools indeed most certainly do rush in where angels fear to tread. > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan, Minnesota >                   Date: 06 Jan 2006 23:55:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:41bur1142ff7ru30nc3m555ohn0ggb05ha@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect >>committing murder by proxy. > > Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the > truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head > impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet > will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to > kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don > your foil lined stryfoam hat. > > I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing > them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything > more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are > much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats. > > I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright, > of course I have riden much more since making the change as well. Most > of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come > close to hitting my head on anything. My main point was that I do not want lay folks like you and me making decisions based on our reading of the data and/or a statistic because we are not qualified to know what to think. We are not expert in the field of safety. My appeal is to authority. As in all walks of life, it is best to leave most things in their hands. It is very dangerous to think for yourself about most matters. It is far better and safer to rely on the experts (in their field of expertise only) to do our thinking for us. That way we will live longer and healthier. If it is possible that you and Frank K. are right, then it will be up to you to convince the powers that be that you are right. It may be that you could become one of those powers yourself and then dictate to the rest of us what we should think about the matter. But until that day arrives, I will go with the status quo, thank you very much! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                     Date: 07 Jan 2006 10:11:58 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:55:11 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message >news:41bur1142ff7ru30nc3m555ohn0ggb05ha@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >> wrote: >[...] >>>By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect >>>committing murder by proxy. >> >> Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the >> truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head >> impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet >> will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to >> kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don >> your foil lined stryfoam hat. >> >> I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing >> them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything >> more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are >> much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats. >> >> I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright, >> of course I have riden much more since making the change as well. Most >> of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come >> close to hitting my head on anything. > >My main point was that I do not want lay folks like you and me making >decisions based on our reading of the data and/or a statistic because we are >not qualified to know what to think. We are not expert in the field of >safety. My appeal is to authority. As in all walks of life, it is best to >leave most things in their hands. > >It is very dangerous to think for yourself about most matters. It is far >better and safer to rely on the experts (in their field of expertise only) >to do our thinking for us. That way we will live longer and healthier. > >If it is possible that you and Frank K. are right, then it will be up to you >to convince the powers that be that you are right. It may be that you could >become one of those powers yourself and then dictate to the rest of us what >we should think about the matter. But until that day arrives, I will go with >the status quo, thank you very much! > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan You are welcome to your styro hat, I almost always wear one as well. But I know it is mainly a psychological comfort, and some protection in case of low impact events only. Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I believe their priy interest is the $. Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t use? And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t use increased? I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most folks have closed minds and will not think at all. Indiana Mike                       Date: 07 Jan 2006 18:09:56 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:qu4vr1l4k1qi25gati8imv6fr343mgemsc@4ax.com... [...] > I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their > own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most > folks have closed minds and will not think at all. Yes, I have a closed mind on the subject and I refuse to entertain any new thoughts on the matter. The bottom line for me is that I enjoy wearing a helmet. Like I said before, I have to have SOMETHING on my head when I go cycling, so it might as well be a helmet. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                       Date: 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? > Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of > H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I > believe their priy interest is the $. Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be seen as too self-serving. > Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for > cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t > use? The reason for this has been explained many times. It's due to differences in cycling road infrastructure, the attitudes of drivers towards cyclists, the near 100% use of lighting at night, etc. If you go to the Netherlands, you'll understand the difference. > And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no > population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t > use increased? The population studies do show that a) cycling is not a dangerous activity, and b) compulsion laws are a bad idea. But don't fall for the junk science promulgated by people from the anti-compulsion side. They have taken spurious correlation to levels usually only seen in fake studies for OTC medications, herbal remedies, and diet pulls. > I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their > own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most > folks have closed minds and will not think at all. That's fine, but what's sad is when the people with closed minds cause other people to close their minds as well.                         Date: 07 Jan 2006 11:56:08 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote: > >> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of >> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I >> believe their priy interest is the $. > >Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in >general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be >seen as too self-serving. I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent. > >> Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for >> cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t >> use? > >The reason for this has been explained many times. It's due to >differences in cycling road infrastructure, the attitudes of drivers >towards cyclists, the near 100% use of lighting at night, etc. If you go >to the Netherlands, you'll understand the difference. I agree that these factors should have a much larger effect on cycling safety than H*lm*t use. > >> And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no >> population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t >> use increased? > >The population studies do show that a) cycling is not a dangerous >activity, and b) compulsion laws are a bad idea. But don't fall for the >junk science promulgated by people from the anti-compulsion side. They >have taken spurious correlation to levels usually only seen in fake >studies for OTC medications, herbal remedies, and diet pulls. > >> I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their >> own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most >> folks have closed minds and will not think at all. > >That's fine, but what's sad is when the people with closed minds cause >other people to close their minds as well. Point taken. I am not trying to be anti-h*lm*t, I wear one most of the time myself. After all, minor injuries are far more common than major injuries, and a h*lm*t may well prevent some uncomfortable scrapes and such. I still do not want to hit my head on pavement, even when wearing my styro hat. The h*lm*t could excaberate a rotational injury. One post in this thread had a quote in the nature of 'A helmet is a good idea if you can convince yourself it will offer only slight protection.' (paraphrased). Can we agree this is a reasonable view? Indiana Mike                           Date: 07 Jan 2006 13:36:45 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Mike Rice wrote: > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > wrote: > >>> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of >>> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I >>> believe their priy interest is the $. >> Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in >> general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be >> seen as too self-serving. > > I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who > suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and > will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent. I have a relative who is also a PT, and has the same view. If you just ask medical professionals, of course you're going to get mainly pro-helmet views, since they are seeing the results of not wearing a helmet. Very few people don't understand that in the event of head impact accident, that the helmet wearer will fare better, the extent of how much better is the real debate. OTOH, the medical professionals have a skewed view of the issue, since they are looking only at the tiny fraction of the population that had an accident in the first place. Still, the medical professional's opinions carry a lot of weight in public policy. Ironically all the junk science promulgated by the anti-compulsion forces plays a part in the efforts of the medical establishment for more compulsion laws, and hurts the anti-compulsion cause when public policy is being made. Who are you going to listen to as a policy maker, someone who deals with injuries that could have been lessened or eliminated by the use of a helmet, or someone that rants about walking and gardening helmets?                             Date: 08 Jan 2006 09:41:24 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > Mike Rice wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of >>>> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I >>>> believe their priy interest is the $. >>> >>> Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors >>> in general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would >>> be seen as too self-serving. >> >> >> I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who >> suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and >> will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent. > > > I have a relative who is also a PT, and has the same view. If you just > ask medical professionals, of course you're going to get mainly > pro-helmet views, since they are seeing the results of not wearing a > helmet. Very few people don't understand that in the event of head > impact accident, that the helmet wearer will fare better, the extent of > how much better is the real debate. Considering that helmet standards are pretty low, a helmet is designed to protect grandpa, who is pootling along on his 60 year old English 3 speed, who when stopped, falls over. Of course it doesn't do much for the broken hip, which results....... > OTOH, the medical professionals have a skewed view of the issue, since > they are looking only at the tiny fraction of the population that had an > accident in the first place. Still, the medical professional's opinions > carry a lot of weight in public policy. Last year, in my city 52 people were killed by guns (out of a total of 78 murders, which isn't bad for a city of 2,500,000), and everybody from the mayor to the Prime Minister is ranting about new more strict gun control laws, even though Canada already has the strictest gun laws in North America. Over the same time period 229 people were killed in traffic collisions ( 4 of them cyclists ), but you don't hear anyone (except maybe ARC -- Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists www.respect.to ) even mentioning those deaths. I think most health care workers would agree that traffic collisions account for a huge number of severe injuries, and most of those are caused by vehicles going too fast, for conditions and operator skills. The solutions 1) Reduce the speed of motorized traffic, for example if the speed limit is 50km/h(31MPH) with a 20% leeway (60km/h - 36MPH), then police should start reducing the leeway, for example reduce it to 10% (55km/h) then reduce it again the following year, the idea being to reduce traffic speeds. Most people forget that the speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Then start reducing the speed limit, say 5km/h (3MPH) every year until it reaches 25km/h (15MPH). Since this is an annual reduction, of 5km/h people would get used to the idea of lower speeds. 2) Upgrade operator skills, using retraining and recertification. W                               Date: 08 Jan 2006 09:59:41 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > Last year, in my city 52 people were killed by guns (out of a total of > 78 murders, which isn't bad for a city of 2,500,000), and everybody from > the mayor to the Prime Minister is ranting about new more strict gun > control laws, even though Canada already has the strictest gun laws in > North America. Over the same time period 229 people were killed in > traffic collisions ( 4 of them cyclists ), but you don't hear anyone > (except maybe ARC -- Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists www.respect.to ) > even mentioning those deaths. I think most health care workers would > agree that traffic collisions account for a huge number of severe > injuries, and most of those are caused by vehicles going too fast, for > conditions and operator skills. Yes, it's clear that murders and car accidents have a lot in common. Now all we need is someone to pipe in with the number of gardening accidents. If this happens please follow-up on that post so I don't miss it.                           Date: 07 Jan 2006 16:10:20 From: Sorni Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Mike Rice wrote: > I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who > suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and > will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent. Um, shouldn't you asterisk abusers also b*st*rdize the SUBJECT line?!? <eg > Bill "helmet h*ir" S.             Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:58:45 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:51:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: (snip) >Screw these ridiculous baseball caps all the way to Hell >and back! Ed you really need to consider cutting back on the kinky satanic sexual references. Indiana Mike > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > >               Date: 06 Jan 2006 15:27:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:vcmtr11o7p2r0fnc3af615nme1c0tsab2t@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:51:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > > (snip) >>Screw these ridiculous baseball caps all the way to Hell >>and back! > > Ed you really need to consider cutting back on the kinky satanic > sexual references. No, screw is acceptable. The f*** word is not as well as most allusions to asses and penises. But of course exceptions can always be made in the case of egregious miscreants. References to Hell and Heaven are always perfectly acceptable. Even my sainted mother mentioned Hell a few times in her life but, admittedly, she mentioned Heaven a whole lot more. Well, you and I, being creatures of the 21st century, are never going to see either one of those fabled places. All we are ever going to see is Oblivion. Here it is for the uninitiated: "Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." - Ed Dolan the Great Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                 Date: 06 Jan 2006 22:10:57 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:27:11 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message >news:vcmtr11o7p2r0fnc3af615nme1c0tsab2t@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:51:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >> wrote: >> >> (snip) >>>Screw these ridiculous baseball caps all the way to Hell >>>and back! >> >> Ed you really need to consider cutting back on the kinky satanic >> sexual references. > >No, screw is acceptable. The f*** word is not as well as most allusions to >asses and penises. But of course exceptions can always be made in the case >of egregious miscreants. > >References to Hell and Heaven are always perfectly acceptable. Even my >sainted mother mentioned Hell a few times in her life but, admittedly, she >mentioned Heaven a whole lot more. Well, you and I, being creatures of the >21st century, are never going to see either one of those fabled places. All >we are ever going to see is Oblivion. > >Here it is for the uninitiated: > >"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." - Ed Dolan the Great Kinda loses a little without reference to the location of this inscription. Indiana Mike > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >                   Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:28:56 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:3mqtr1pvtmvud837equpbiscclqnef1gj4@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:27:11 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>References to Hell and Heaven are always perfectly acceptable. Even my >>sainted mother mentioned Hell a few times in her life but, admittedly, she >>mentioned Heaven a whole lot more. Well, you and I, being creatures of the >>21st century, are never going to see either one of those fabled places. >>All >>we are ever going to see is Oblivion. >> >>Here it is for the uninitiated: >> >>"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." - Ed Dolan the Great > > Kinda loses a little without reference to the location of this > inscription. I have decided to make the above epitaph my own since I am the only one who seems aware of it or appreciates the profundity of it. Yes, it is plagiarism, but all in the good cause of enlightenment. Most importantly of all, the above statement is worthy of my Greatness, something that can't be said for most everything else that is said on this group. Besides, I have always thought the above to be true since I was a teenager. Therefore, in effect, it is mine. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 05 Jan 2006 20:20:59 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling. > Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to. > PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on > Usenet. Then why contribute to it? If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:19:41 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On 5 Jan 2006 20:20:59 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling. >> Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. > >Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people >pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when >cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to. > > >> PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on >> Usenet. > >Then why contribute to it? > >If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at >least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish. > >- Frank Krygowski Hi Frank. If you have noticed Ed Dolan's posting history you realize he has absolutely no aversions to appearing foolish. Indiana Mike       Date: 06 Jan 2006 14:29:07 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:85ktr1d2fqhiaacq5kmon4sdq9k1qubr1i@4ax.com... > On 5 Jan 2006 20:20:59 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> >>Edward Dolan wrote: >>> >>> >>> I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go >>> cycling. >>> Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. >> >>Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people >>pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when >>cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to. >> >> >>> PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily >>> displayed on >>> Usenet. >> >>Then why contribute to it? >> >>If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at >>least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish. >> >>- Frank Krygowski > > Hi Frank. If you have noticed Ed Dolan's posting history you realize > he has absolutely no aversions to appearing foolish. > > Indiana Mike Frank K. has already kill filed me. I made short work of him. These RBM guys got no staying power at all. Just say boo to them and they run and hide. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 06 Jan 2006 11:02:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136521258.399337.182620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go >> cycling. >> Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. > > Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people > pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when > cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to. [...] Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the great out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know this much at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about the world uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted head. I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for not wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put SOMETHING on that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are riding your bike. Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk that you are. I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball style of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the world. Go back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing on our blasted heads. > - Frank Krygowski Have you ever thought of doing something about your name? Krygowski looks dumb. It is way too Slavic. All the Slavic languages are an abomination. I don't know which is worse, Polish or Russian. The sooner the world gets Anglicized and Americanized, the better. Why not do something useful (instead of blathering about bike helmets) and get a name change. All those consonants look ridiculous. God only knows how it is pronounced. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 06 Jan 2006 18:25:35 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1136521258.399337.182620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: >> >>> >>>I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go >>>cycling. >>>Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. >> >>Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people >>pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when >>cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to. > > [...] > > Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the great > out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know this much > at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about the world > uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. > > In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself > would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted head. > I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for not > wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put SOMETHING on > that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are riding your bike. > Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk that you are. > > I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball style > of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the world. Go > back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing on our > blasted heads. I suppose that means we need to wear a wool suit, tie and spats, with Oxfords to go along with that fedora. I spend 6 months of the year wearing a touque outside, typically wear a ball cap during the summer, when being active. They keep the sun off your head, the sun out of your eyes, work well for keeping rain out of your eyes as well. > > >>- Frank Krygowski > > > Have you ever thought of doing something about your name? Krygowski looks > dumb. It is way too Slavic. All the Slavic languages are an abomination. I > don't know which is worse, Polish or Russian. The sooner the world gets > Anglicized and Americanized, the better. Why not do something useful > (instead of blathering about bike helmets) and get a name change. All those > consonants look ridiculous. God only knows how it is pronounced. I would say Polish, Russian names of that style often end with sky, there are also Prussian versions, that typically end in ske ( I have a couple of cousins with a name that ends ske). As for Frank's I would guess Cry-gow-ski (the gow part rhymes with cow).... > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota You really should talk to someone about your ego problem, you should have a nice chat with a good therapist..... W         Date: 06 Jan 2006 23:35:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:g0Dvf.3314$H37.501438@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the >> great out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know >> this much at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about >> the world uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. >> >> In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself >> would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted >> head. I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for >> not wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put >> SOMETHING on that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are >> riding your bike. Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk >> that you are. >> >> I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball >> style of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the >> world. Go back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing >> on our blasted heads. > > I suppose that means we need to wear a wool suit, tie and spats, with > Oxfords to go along with that fedora. I spend 6 months of the year > wearing a touque outside, typically wear a ball cap during the summer, > when being active. They keep the sun off your head, the sun out of your > eyes, work well for keeping rain out of your eyes as well. I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown men. Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and jerky. But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear blue jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse we dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of our loathsome presence. I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old kids with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really quite laughable. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 07 Jan 2006 10:48:09 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:g0Dvf.3314$H37.501438@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the >>>great out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know >>>this much at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about >>>the world uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World. >>> >>>In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself >>>would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted >>>head. I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for >>>not wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put >>>SOMETHING on that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are >>>riding your bike. Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk >>>that you are. >>> >>>I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball >>>style of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the >>>world. Go back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing >>>on our blasted heads. >> >>I suppose that means we need to wear a wool suit, tie and spats, with >>Oxfords to go along with that fedora. I spend 6 months of the year >>wearing a touque outside, typically wear a ball cap during the summer, >>when being active. They keep the sun off your head, the sun out of your >>eyes, work well for keeping rain out of your eyes as well. > > > I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown men. > Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and jerky. In winter, I would rather be a warm dork, then, well there has never been a proper hat, designed for winter use, except maybe those Russian things made from dead animal fur. They are heavy, and really kind of ugly. > But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear blue > jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse we > dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of our > loathsome presence. There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food, the less weight you need to worry about. > I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked > like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone > forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old kids > with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really quite > laughable. If one does no physical activity faster then a walk or cycles at less then 7MPH, and does so only when the temperature is between 40F and 75F then clothing from those days would make sense. Mind you the practicality of denim outside of those temperature regions, also doesn't make sense, because it chaffs in the summer, and since it's cotton, it simply gets cold and wet in winter. One thing we have really gained, recently is activity centred clothing, where the way you dress, is indictive of activity, the stuffed shirt can wear a shirt and tie. The cyclist can wear cycling clothes, the hiker can wear hiking clothes (other then the pocket placement, and no need of a chamios) this is similar to cycling clothing. W             Date: 07 Jan 2006 18:58:43 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:4pRvf.3573$H37.558891@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown >> men. Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and >> jerky. > > In winter, I would rather be a warm dork, then, well there has never been > a proper hat, designed for winter use, except maybe those Russian things > made from dead animal fur. They are heavy, and really kind of ugly. Nope, I wear them. They work just fine and I think they look just fine too. But still I see men who presumably have some brains running around in cold temperatures without anything on their heads. They don't wear scarves either. I think we are getting dumber and dumber with every generation. >> But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear >> blue jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse >> we dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of >> our loathsome presence. > > There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer > car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food, the > less weight you need to worry about. Agreed. Walking will work here in Minnesota in the winter when nothing else will. Still, everyone is running around in cars and you never see anyone out walking. I think folks in small towns do the least amount of walking of anyone in the country. >> I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked >> like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone >> forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old >> kids with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really >> quite laughable. > > If one does no physical activity faster then a walk or cycles at less then > 7MPH, and does so only when the temperature is between 40F and 75F then > clothing from those days would make sense. Mind you the practicality of > denim outside of those temperature regions, also doesn't make sense, > because it chaffs in the summer, and since it's cotton, it simply gets > cold and wet in winter. > > One thing we have really gained, recently is activity centred clothing, > where the way you dress, is indictive of activity, the stuffed shirt can > wear a shirt and tie. The cyclist can wear cycling clothes, the hiker can > wear hiking clothes (other then the pocket placement, and no need of a > chamios) this is similar to cycling clothing. Yes, you are quite right in everything you say. But I just hate blue jeans (denim). They look just horrible on grown men, most of whom have pot bellies and sagging butts. Blue jeans are OK for kids and for farm labor, but why anyone would wear them in town is beyond me. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota               Date: 07 Jan 2006 20:32:58 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:4pRvf.3573$H37.558891@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown >>>men. Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and >>>jerky. >> >>In winter, I would rather be a warm dork, then, well there has never been >>a proper hat, designed for winter use, except maybe those Russian things >>made from dead animal fur. They are heavy, and really kind of ugly. > > > Nope, I wear them. They work just fine and I think they look just fine too. > But still I see men who presumably have some brains running around in cold > temperatures without anything on their heads. They don't wear scarves > either. I think we are getting dumber and dumber with every generation. > Well, I live in Canada and I find, the colder it gets, the more toques you will see. Usually the idiot yapping about how cold it is, isn't wearing one. I don't wear a scarf myself, I have a neck gator, which is basically a ring of material, that you can pull over your head. You can also pull it up over your face. Of course, when it really gets cold, I dig out the balaclava, which has a hole for each eye, and a hole for the mouth, you might look silly wearing it, but I have walked around with it, in cold temps for hours, without feeling cold. >>>But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear >>>blue jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse >>>we dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of >>>our loathsome presence. >> >>There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer >>car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food, the >>less weight you need to worry about. > > > Agreed. Walking will work here in Minnesota in the winter when nothing else > will. Still, everyone is running around in cars and you never see anyone out > walking. I think folks in small towns do the least amount of walking of > anyone in the country. Just bump the price of gas to $12.00 a gallon, and you will see a major uptick in the number of people walking, and biking. Make it $24/Gallon and you will see almost no cars on the road at all. >>>I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked >>>like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone >>>forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old >>>kids with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really >>>quite laughable. >> >>If one does no physical activity faster then a walk or cycles at less then >>7MPH, and does so only when the temperature is between 40F and 75F then >>clothing from those days would make sense. Mind you the practicality of >>denim outside of those temperature regions, also doesn't make sense, >>because it chaffs in the summer, and since it's cotton, it simply gets >>cold and wet in winter. >> >>One thing we have really gained, recently is activity centred clothing, >>where the way you dress, is indictive of activity, the stuffed shirt can >>wear a shirt and tie. The cyclist can wear cycling clothes, the hiker can >>wear hiking clothes (other then the pocket placement, and no need of a >>chamios) this is similar to cycling clothing. > > > Yes, you are quite right in everything you say. But I just hate blue jeans > (denim). They look just horrible on grown men, most of whom have pot bellies > and sagging butts. Blue jeans are OK for kids and for farm labor, but why > anyone would wear them in town is beyond me. Well, considering that Levi Strauss made his blue denims for miners, I would say, yeah, farm labourers and miners could wear jeans, everyone else should really wear something else. There are nice casual pants about, and many of them look quite sharp. In winter pair of good wool pants, with Polartec or similar long underwear is a good outdoor combination. W > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > >                 Date: 07 Jan 2006 20:09:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:1_Zvf.42606$X25.1261940@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] > Well, I live in Canada and I find, the colder it gets, the more toques you > will see. Usually the idiot yapping about how cold it is, isn't wearing > one. I don't wear a scarf myself, I have a neck gator, which is basically > a ring of material, that you can pull over your head. You can also pull > it up over your face. Of course, when it really gets cold, I dig out the > balaclava, which has a hole for each eye, and a hole for the mouth, you > might look silly wearing it, but I have walked around with it, in cold > temps for hours, without feeling cold. Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! >>>>But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear >>>>blue jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the >>>>worse we dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be >>>>rid of our loathsome presence. >>> >>>There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer >>>car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food, >>>the less weight you need to worry about. >> >> >> Agreed. Walking will work here in Minnesota in the winter when nothing >> else will. Still, everyone is running around in cars and you never see >> anyone out walking. I think folks in small towns do the least amount of >> walking of anyone in the country. > > Just bump the price of gas to $12.00 a gallon, and you will see a major > uptick in the number of people walking, and biking. Make it $24/Gallon > and you will see almost no cars on the road at all. Wogster, I have come to the conclusion that the price of gasoline will have to go to a minimum of $100. a gallon here in the US before anything significant starts to happen. Most people I know would rather go without food than go without gas for their freaking cars. [...] >> Yes, you are quite right in everything you say. But I just hate blue >> jeans (denim). They look just horrible on grown men, most of whom have >> pot bellies and sagging butts. Blue jeans are OK for kids and for farm >> labor, but why anyone would wear them in town is beyond me. > > Well, considering that Levi Strauss made his blue denims for miners, I > would say, yeah, farm labourers and miners could wear jeans, everyone else > should really wear something else. There are nice casual pants about, and > many of them look quite sharp. In winter pair of good wool pants, with > Polartec or similar long underwear is a good outdoor combination. Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                   Date: 07 Jan 2006 22:08:48 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:1_Zvf.42606$X25.1261940@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>Well, I live in Canada and I find, the colder it gets, the more toques you >>will see. Usually the idiot yapping about how cold it is, isn't wearing >>one. I don't wear a scarf myself, I have a neck gator, which is basically >>a ring of material, that you can pull over your head. You can also pull >>it up over your face. Of course, when it really gets cold, I dig out the >>balaclava, which has a hole for each eye, and a hole for the mouth, you >>might look silly wearing it, but I have walked around with it, in cold >>temps for hours, without feeling cold. > > > Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! There are actually quite a few of us. John from Kingston who floats around here, is another one.... >>>>>But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear >>>>>blue jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the >>>>>worse we dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be >>>>>rid of our loathsome presence. >>>> >>>>There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer >>>>car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food, >>>>the less weight you need to worry about. >>> >>> >>>Agreed. Walking will work here in Minnesota in the winter when nothing >>>else will. Still, everyone is running around in cars and you never see >>>anyone out walking. I think folks in small towns do the least amount of >>>walking of anyone in the country. >> >>Just bump the price of gas to $12.00 a gallon, and you will see a major >>uptick in the number of people walking, and biking. Make it $24/Gallon >>and you will see almost no cars on the road at all. > > > Wogster, I have come to the conclusion that the price of gasoline will have > to go to a minimum of $100. a gallon here in the US before anything > significant starts to happen. Most people I know would rather go without > food than go without gas for their freaking cars. > [...] I don't know about that, Labour day, just after Katrina when gas here hit $1.30/L (~$4/Gallon) made the highways to cottage country virtually traffic free, when normally they would have been packed, and we are generally just as car crazy as Americans. Did see a lot more bikes around though.... Of course this time of year, it's a little different, but gas prices are again toying with $1/L and I think that's a psycological barrier for a lot of people. At 0.999/L they will drive to work, at $1.010/L they will take transit, it works out to be cheaper. Then again, we have always been more thrifty then Americans. > > >>>Yes, you are quite right in everything you say. But I just hate blue >>>jeans (denim). They look just horrible on grown men, most of whom have >>>pot bellies and sagging butts. Blue jeans are OK for kids and for farm >>>labor, but why anyone would wear them in town is beyond me. >> >>Well, considering that Levi Strauss made his blue denims for miners, I >>would say, yeah, farm labourers and miners could wear jeans, everyone else >>should really wear something else. There are nice casual pants about, and >>many of them look quite sharp. In winter pair of good wool pants, with >>Polartec or similar long underwear is a good outdoor combination. > > > Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! > And from the looks of the latest election polls, the sensible ones are growing in numbers every day.... W                     Date: 08 Jan 2006 04:40:03 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > I don't know about that, Labour day, just after Katrina when gas here > hit $1.30/L (~$4/Gallon) made the highways to cottage country virtually > traffic free, when normally they would have been packed, and we are > generally just as car crazy as Americans. Did see a lot more bikes > around though.... Of course this time of year, it's a little different, > but gas prices are again toying with $1/L and I think that's a > psycological barrier for a lot of people. At 0.999/L they will drive to > work, at $1.010/L they will take transit, it works out to be cheaper. > Then again, we have always been more thrifty then Americans. Yeah, when gas was $3 a gallon, around Labor Day, the temperature was around 26˚ C, and it was clear, I was seeing a lot more cyclists than around Xmas, when gas was $2 a gallon, the temperature was 4˚ C, and it was raining. This clearly proves that higher gasoline prices cause more people to ride their bicycles. I think that I'll bring this fact up at a public policy meeting. It goes hand in hand with gardening helmets.                       Date: 08 Jan 2006 17:39:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message news:43c10813$0$95965$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > The Wogster wrote: > >> I don't know about that, Labour day, just after Katrina when gas here hit >> $1.30/L (~$4/Gallon) made the highways to cottage country virtually >> traffic free, when normally they would have been packed, and we are >> generally just as car crazy as Americans. Did see a lot more bikes >> around though.... Of course this time of year, it's a little different, >> but gas prices are again toying with $1/L and I think that's a >> psycological barrier for a lot of people. At 0.999/L they will drive to >> work, at $1.010/L they will take transit, it works out to be cheaper. >> Then again, we have always been more thrifty then Americans. > > Yeah, when gas was $3 a gallon, around Labor Day, the temperature was > around 26? C, and it was clear, I was seeing a lot more cyclists than > around Xmas, when gas was $2 a gallon, the temperature was 4? C, and it > was raining. This clearly proves that higher gasoline prices cause more > people to ride their bicycles. I think that I'll bring this fact up at a > public policy meeting. It goes hand in hand with gardening helmets. Still, it will be interesting to see what will happen when the world runs out of oil. Unless we can come up with an alternative fuel that will work something like oil, I think we will see a major reordering of life styles in the West. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                         Date: 08 Jan 2006 20:39:14 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message > news:43c10813$0$95965$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > >>The Wogster wrote: >> >> >>>I don't know about that, Labour day, just after Katrina when gas here hit >>>$1.30/L (~$4/Gallon) made the highways to cottage country virtually >>>traffic free, when normally they would have been packed, and we are >>>generally just as car crazy as Americans. Did see a lot more bikes >>>around though.... Of course this time of year, it's a little different, >>>but gas prices are again toying with $1/L and I think that's a >>>psycological barrier for a lot of people. At 0.999/L they will drive to >>>work, at $1.010/L they will take transit, it works out to be cheaper. >>>Then again, we have always been more thrifty then Americans. >> >>Yeah, when gas was $3 a gallon, around Labor Day, the temperature was >>around 26? C, and it was clear, I was seeing a lot more cyclists than >>around Xmas, when gas was $2 a gallon, the temperature was 4? C, and it >>was raining. This clearly proves that higher gasoline prices cause more >>people to ride their bicycles. I think that I'll bring this fact up at a >>public policy meeting. It goes hand in hand with gardening helmets. > > > Still, it will be interesting to see what will happen when the world runs > out of oil. Unless we can come up with an alternative fuel that will work > something like oil, I think we will see a major reordering of life styles in > the West. Oil will become to valuable to burn. Yup, however it will not be, a we have oil one day, we don't the next, it will be, that the oil available will be much harder, and more expensive to obtain, for example think last fall, when gas hit $5/Gallon was expensive, it will be there again, except it will keep on going up. Municipal transit companies will start running trolley and street cars, en masse, because building the electric infrastructure will be cheaper then buying the fuel for bus fleets. Freight and people will get moved intercity by rail, because the railways, can electrify lines, and it will be cheaper to run power lines, then to purchase the oil to operate the trains. Airlines will drop like flies, because they will not be able to compete fare wise with the new electrified railways. Expect to see a lot of dual power locomotives for a while, where it has a diesel engine, and a pentagraph, allowing it to run in either diesel mode on unelectrified lines, and electric on electrified lines. Cities will need to be rebuilt, although a lot of land will be made available when parking isn't needed as much. Homes will be built smaller, and the townhome will become much more popular, except it will not have a garage under it, and the common wall will mean less heating cost. Systems like Toronto's Enwave (www.enwave.com) which supplies steam heat and Deep Lake Water Cooling, will provide the bulk of heating and cooling for these homes, it's much more efficient to have a central plant, even if it uses gas, then to have each home with it's own heating system. Expect the gas to come from garbage digesters and sewage treatment plants, rather then petroleum sources. What will happen, is that you will have a meter in the basement, that measures how much steam and chiller water you use, and you will be billed for that. Suburbs will disappear, they don't have enough density for transit, and driving will be too expensive, forget $5/Gallon, were talking $50/Gallon, snd many gas stations will disappear because they will not get enough business to be profitable, even if gasoline represents only a small portion of their business. So you might have to spend $100 to drive to the gas station for that $750 fillup. Companies like GM and Ford will head into different businesses, there will be a huge need for rail transit vehicles, which are largely hand built. Of course, America will have a need for about 240,000,000 new bicycles as well. The bicycle being the most efficient way of moving relatively short distances. Add to that about 25,000,000 new bikes in Canada, there will be an amazing new business for suppliers of ice capable tires. Imagine the morning traffic report, "And we have a 117 bike peloton on I-495 south, and a disabled bike on the side of the north bound lanes, looks like a dropped chain." W                           Date: 09 Jan 2006 13:21:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:79jwf.562$W03.120291@news20.bellglobal.com... [...] Like your thinking Wogster. It seems like we will be returning to the early 20th century, when folks were more sensible and hard headed. I remember when I first arrived in Minneapolis for my college education back in the 1950's that there were still a few street cars around that ran on rails. What a great idea! I never did like buses. I think most of us however are waiting for a technological fix. Science will save us! It is clear we cannot go on like we have been. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                     Date: 07 Jan 2006 22:02:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:Mn%vf.42630$X25.1274205@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! >> > > And from the looks of the latest election polls, the sensible ones are > growing in numbers every day.... I have had a very bad relationship with all Canadians in my years of being on Usenet (mainly ARBR). They have all been very liberal without exception and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. That is too bad as far as I am concerned because there is much that I like about Canada. You have already demonstrated in these few brief messages that you have common sense and that counts for a lot with me. I attribute much of what goes on in Canada to your very liberal media, most especially the CBC. I believe the CBC is right down there along with the BBC. Both are radical liberal and I can't stand either one. Thank God for Fox News here in America. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                       Date: 08 Jan 2006 10:23:44 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:Mn%vf.42630$X25.1274205@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>Ah, at last, a sensible Canadian! Yes, Virginia, they do exist! >>> >> >>And from the looks of the latest election polls, the sensible ones are >>growing in numbers every day.... > > > I have had a very bad relationship with all Canadians in my years of being > on Usenet (mainly ARBR). They have all been very liberal without exception > and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. That is too bad as far > as I am concerned because there is much that I like about Canada. Ah, yes, we are more European, I think it's more ethnic, rather then becoming a melting pot, where immigrants are assimilated, we allow for people to retain their ethnicity. Since the bulk of Canadians have some European or British roots, we appear more European. I think the reason people generally like Canada, is that Canadians are more willing to try something new. A Canadian dropped in the middle of Paris, France would say "Cool, eh, I can try some French Cuisine, eh". An American in the same situation, would stand in the middle of the city square, and yell "Where is the F'ing McDonalds". This is why a Canadian travelling overseas is always cautioned to wear a maple leaf, somewhere at all times, the world likes us. > > You have already demonstrated in these few brief messages that you have > common sense and that counts for a lot with me. I attribute much of what > goes on in Canada to your very liberal media, most especially the CBC. I > believe the CBC is right down there along with the BBC. Both are radical > liberal and I can't stand either one. Thank God for Fox News here in > America. I would agree, the CBC can be a little too liberal (I nicknamed it the Communist Broadcast Corporation YEARS ago), however there are also more conservative news sources, although they all will often will take an international stand on international news and a domestic stand on domestic news, unlike US media which tends to take a domestic stand on international and domestic news. I think that is mostly because we are smaller, and not all news organizations have correspondants everywhere. In fact our media outlets often quote each other, or quote international sources. It can be funny sometimes, when CBC and CTV (the two largest TV networks), show the same NBC report. I gotts go, so more later. W > Regards, > > Ed Dolan - Minnesota > >                         Date: 08 Jan 2006 17:35:25 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:38awf.49$Pq4.12075@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> I have had a very bad relationship with all Canadians in my years of >> being on Usenet (mainly ARBR). They have all been very liberal without >> exception and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. That is too >> bad as far as I am concerned because there is much that I like about >> Canada. > > Ah, yes, we are more European, I think it's more ethnic, rather then > becoming a melting pot, where immigrants are assimilated, we allow for > people to retain their ethnicity. Since the bulk of Canadians have some > European or British roots, we appear more European. I think the reason > people generally like Canada, is that Canadians are more willing to try > something new. > > A Canadian dropped in the middle of Paris, France would say "Cool, eh, I > can try some French Cuisine, eh". An American in the same situation, > would stand in the middle of the city square, and yell "Where is the F'ing > McDonalds". This is why a Canadian travelling overseas is always > cautioned to wear a maple leaf, somewhere at all times, the world likes > us. The fact that the world does not go bonkers over Canada like it does the US is because Canada's status in the world is on the order of Costa Rica. If and when Canada ever becomes a super power, all that will change in a trice. France will then be as delighted to stab Canada in the back as it was to do it to the US. France thinks it has been robbed of its rightful place in history. They never got over the glories of Napoleon. >> You have already demonstrated in these few brief messages that you have >> common sense and that counts for a lot with me. I attribute much of what >> goes on in Canada to your very liberal media, most especially the CBC. I >> believe the CBC is right down there along with the BBC. Both are radical >> liberal and I can't stand either one. Thank God for Fox News here in >> America. > > I would agree, the CBC can be a little too liberal (I nicknamed it the > Communist Broadcast Corporation YEARS ago), however there are also more > conservative news sources, although they all will often will take an > international stand on international news and a domestic stand on domestic > news, unlike US media which tends to take a domestic stand on > international and domestic news. I think that is mostly because we are > smaller, and not all news organizations have correspondants everywhere. In > fact our media outlets often quote each other, or quote international > sources. It can be funny sometimes, when CBC and CTV (the two largest TV > networks), show the same NBC report. The NY Times is still the main source for the major media in the US. But the US has now developed a healthy conservative media for the first time in my life. It was about time. I used to hate Walter Cronkite on CBS telling us that that is the way it is when all he was doing was feeding us a constant stream of liberal ideology. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                           Date: 08 Jan 2006 19:36:45 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:38awf.49$Pq4.12075@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>I have had a very bad relationship with all Canadians in my years of >>>being on Usenet (mainly ARBR). They have all been very liberal without >>>exception and in fact act more like Europeans than Americans. That is too >>>bad as far as I am concerned because there is much that I like about >>>Canada. >> >>Ah, yes, we are more European, I think it's more ethnic, rather then >>becoming a melting pot, where immigrants are assimilated, we allow for >>people to retain their ethnicity. Since the bulk of Canadians have some >>European or British roots, we appear more European. I think the reason >>people generally like Canada, is that Canadians are more willing to try >>something new. >> >>A Canadian dropped in the middle of Paris, France would say "Cool, eh, I >>can try some French Cuisine, eh". An American in the same situation, >>would stand in the middle of the city square, and yell "Where is the F'ing >>McDonalds". This is why a Canadian travelling overseas is always >>cautioned to wear a maple leaf, somewhere at all times, the world likes >>us. > > > The fact that the world does not go bonkers over Canada like it does the US > is because Canada's status in the world is on the order of Costa Rica. If > and when Canada ever becomes a super power, all that will change in a trice. > France will then be as delighted to stab Canada in the back as it was to do > it to the US. France thinks it has been robbed of its rightful place in > history. They never got over the glories of Napoleon. Actually Canada is respected by much of the world, it has it's deficit under control (unlike the United States). Our dollar is doing quite well, and we have something like 90% of the untapped oil supply left in North America. I suspect the days of the super-powers are over, it's consortiums that are taking over, like the European Union. The United States will become a has-been in the next 50 years, when the oil supply starts drying up, and it will not be able to borrow enough money to defend the middle East against the Billion man army known as China. The United States will then join the Americas Union, which will consist of Canada, United States, Mexico, Guatamala, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Barbados, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuala, Columbia, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia (I know some people there), Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. It will be one big free trade zone, with a common currency, just like most of Europe is. Unlike NAFTA, the United States will not be able to write this trade agreement. >>>You have already demonstrated in these few brief messages that you have >>>common sense and that counts for a lot with me. I attribute much of what >>>goes on in Canada to your very liberal media, most especially the CBC. I >>>believe the CBC is right down there along with the BBC. Both are radical >>>liberal and I can't stand either one. Thank God for Fox News here in >>>America. >> >>I would agree, the CBC can be a little too liberal (I nicknamed it the >>Communist Broadcast Corporation YEARS ago), however there are also more >>conservative news sources, although they all will often will take an >>international stand on international news and a domestic stand on domestic >>news, unlike US media which tends to take a domestic stand on >>international and domestic news. I think that is mostly because we are >>smaller, and not all news organizations have correspondants everywhere. In >>fact our media outlets often quote each other, or quote international >>sources. It can be funny sometimes, when CBC and CTV (the two largest TV >>networks), show the same NBC report. > > > The NY Times is still the main source for the major media in the US. But the > US has now developed a healthy conservative media for the first time in my > life. It was about time. I used to hate Walter Cronkite on CBS telling us > that that is the way it is when all he was doing was feeding us a constant > stream of liberal ideology. Actually, the CBC does two things very well. They continue the tradition of radio drama, and they service areas, that would not otherwise be servicable due to lack of population. The problem with US news, and I have seen some of it, is that they always take a US stand on international issues. Which brings me to another issue, I have with US media, how come the media is so obsessed by politics and political issues, when the majority of citizens don't even care enough to vote? W                             Date: 09 Jan 2006 13:09:00 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:yeiwf.481$W03.111674@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> The fact that the world does not go bonkers over Canada like it does the >> US is because Canada's status in the world is on the order of Costa Rica. >> If and when Canada ever becomes a super power, all that will change in a >> trice. France will then be as delighted to stab Canada in the back as it >> was to do it to the US. France thinks it has been robbed of its rightful >> place in history. They never got over the glories of Napoleon. > > Actually Canada is respected by much of the world, it has it's deficit > under control (unlike the United States). Our dollar is doing quite well, > and we have something like 90% of the untapped oil supply left in North > America. I suspect the days of the super-powers are over, it's > consortiums that are taking over, like the European Union. The United > States will become a has-been in the next 50 years, when the oil supply > starts drying up, and it will not be able to borrow enough money to defend > the middle East against the Billion man army known as China. The United > States will then join the Americas Union, which will consist of Canada, > United States, Mexico, Guatamala, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, > Barbados, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuala, Columbia, Brazil, > Peru, Bolivia (I know some people there), Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. > It will be one big free trade zone, with a common currency, just like most > of Europe is. Unlike NAFTA, the United States will not be able to write > this trade agreement. Costa Rica has the respect of the world too, even if not regarded as much of a power. Canada does not have a great deficit like the US because it does not pull its weight in the world like the US does. The Canadian military is next to nothing. Canada is secure because of the US. The same could be said for Europe too. The only bulwark in the world (thanks to President Bush) for Western Civilization is the US. The very least Canada could do is show some support for US policy if it does not want to undertake any of the burden itself. As for the rest of your thinking, who knows what the future holds. It may be that the Muslim terrorists will manage to get their hands on a nuclear weapon (via Iran) and blow Toronto to kingdom come. What then? [...] > Actually, the CBC does two things very well. They continue the tradition > of radio drama, and they service areas, that would not otherwise be > servicable due to lack of population. The problem with US news, and I > have seen some of it, is that they always take a US stand on international > issues. Which brings me to another issue, I have with US media, how come > the media is so obsessed by politics and political issues, when the > majority of citizens don't even care enough to vote? Those who do not vote are in effect also voting. They have indicated by not voting that they are content to let those who do vote run the ship of state. As a matter of fact, I absolutely do not want anyone voting who does not take an interest in civic affairs. Our American democracy is as strong and healthy as it has ever been. The US is like Ancient Rome. We are self absorbed even though we are in every quarter of the globe making things happen. Like Ancient Rome, we have developed elites that take care of things so that the general public can go about its own business, worrying about trapped miners and other mundane things. The US media has now become politicized just like those media have been in Europe and Canada for generations. If you want a liberal view of things, then you will read the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. If you want a fair and balanced view of things, then you go to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. You cannot get the nothing but the news anymore anywhere, certainly not via the CBC or the BBC. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota                               Date: 09 Jan 2006 19:19:19 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:yeiwf.481$W03.111674@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > > >>>The fact that the world does not go bonkers over Canada like it does the >>>US is because Canada's status in the world is on the order of Costa Rica. >>>If and when Canada ever becomes a super power, all that will change in a >>>trice. France will then be as delighted to stab Canada in the back as it >>>was to do it to the US. France thinks it has been robbed of its rightful >>>place in history. They never got over the glories of Napoleon. >> >>Actually Canada is respected by much of the world, it has it's deficit >>under control (unlike the United States). Our dollar is doing quite well, >>and we have something like 90% of the untapped oil supply left in North >>America. I suspect the days of the super-powers are over, it's >>consortiums that are taking over, like the European Union. The United >>States will become a has-been in the next 50 years, when the oil supply >>starts drying up, and it will not be able to borrow enough money to defend >>the middle East against the Billion man army known as China. The United >>States will then join the Americas Union, which will consist of Canada, >>United States, Mexico, Guatamala, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, >>Barbados, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuala, Columbia, Brazil, >>Peru, Bolivia (I know some people there), Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. >>It will be one big free trade zone, with a common currency, just like most >>of Europe is. Unlike NAFTA, the United States will not be able to write >>this trade agreement. > > > Costa Rica has the respect of the world too, even if not regarded as much of > a power. Canada does not have a great deficit like the US because it does > not pull its weight in the world like the US does. The Canadian military is > next to nothing. Canada is secure because of the US. The same could be said > for Europe too. The only bulwark in the world (thanks to President Bush) for > Western Civilization is the US. The very least Canada could do is show some > support for US policy if it does not want to undertake any of the burden > itself. Well, we don't really need a big military, who would we war with, everyone likes us, sure there has been the occassional terrorist, but domestically there hasn't been war since, well 1812, when we kicked America's ass. A little peace keeping here and there, and sending the occassional ship fishing illegally in our waters packing, doesn't take a big military force. The whole issue of without the big US military protecting the free world, that it would suddenly collapse, is just so much male bovine manure. The United States needs a big military, to secure it's oil supply, and that is why it's taking control of then worlds second largest current supplier. Really the United States needs to lighten up, it's way to uptight, and that big military is in charge of the winding key. > > As for the rest of your thinking, who knows what the future holds. It may be > that the Muslim terrorists will manage to get their hands on a nuclear > weapon (via Iran) and blow Toronto to kingdom come. What then? > [...] Why would they? That's the big question, why would you attack nice guy Canada? You would have the entire world, including a good bunch of the countries you want as friends, ready to rip you apart. The United States would be a much better target for that bomb, if you had to pick a country people love to hate, it would be the United States. And that is why it was the World Trade Center rather then the Toronto Dominion Centre that was attacked. >>Actually, the CBC does two things very well. They continue the tradition >>of radio drama, and they service areas, that would not otherwise be >>servicable due to lack of population. The problem with US news, and I >>have seen some of it, is that they always take a US stand on international >>issues. Which brings me to another issue, I have with US media, how come >>the media is so obsessed by politics and political issues, when the >>majority of citizens don't even care enough to vote? > > > Those who do not vote are in effect also voting. They have indicated by not > voting that they are content to let those who do vote run the ship of state. > As a matter of fact, I absolutely do not want anyone voting who does not > take an interest in civic affairs. Our American democracy is as strong and > healthy as it has ever been. If you don't vote, you deserve the government you get stuck with. However that doesn't answer the question, why is the US media so absorbed with politics, and boring politics as well. What the United States needs, is a good joke like the old Canadian Rhinoceros party (now defunct), maybe a good toke would be better, you can have the ajuana party :-)[1] Actually you want a real joke, take the NDP, puhlease take the NDP, you can even have Smilin' Jack (think Herb Tarlek from WKRP, with a huge smile ) their much feared leader, if this guy becomes prime minister, I'm moving to a third world country, and declaring refugee status. W [1] Please let it be known, that I have never smoked ajuana, nor do I encourage anyone else to.                                 Date: 09 Jan 2006 21:35:34 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:q4Dwf.2839$W03.259174@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> Costa Rica has the respect of the world too, even if not regarded as much >> of a power. Canada does not have a great deficit like the US because it >> does not pull its weight in the world like the US does. The Canadian >> military is next to nothing. Canada is secure because of the US. The same >> could be said for Europe too. The only bulwark in the world (thanks to >> President Bush) for Western Civilization is the US. The very least >> Canada could do is show some support for US policy if it does not want >> to undertake any of the burden itself. > > Well, we don't really need a big military, who would we war with, everyone > likes us, sure there has been the occassional terrorist, but domestically > there hasn't been war since, well 1812, when we kicked America's ass. A > little peace keeping here and there, and sending the occassional ship > fishing illegally in our waters packing, doesn't take a big military > force. The whole issue of without the big US military protecting the free > world, that it would suddenly collapse, is just so much male bovine > manure. The United States needs a big military, to secure it's oil > supply, and that is why it's taking control of then worlds second largest > current supplier. The Mongol hordes from the steppes of Central Asia are waiting in the wings to swoop down on you, but the US prevents it. > Really the United States needs to lighten up, it's way to uptight, and > that big military is in charge of the winding key. Really, Canada needs to take on its fair share of the world's burden and stop sponging off the US. We Americans are getting sick and tired of Canadians free loading off of us. You are as bad as the Europeans that way. >> As for the rest of your thinking, who knows what the future holds. It may >> be that the Muslim terrorists will manage to get their hands on a nuclear >> weapon (via Iran) and blow Toronto to kingdom come. What then? >> [...] > > Why would they? That's the big question, why would you attack nice guy > Canada? You would have the entire world, including a good bunch of the > countries you want as friends, ready to rip you apart. The United States > would be a much better target for that bomb, if you had to pick a country > people love to hate, it would be the United States. And that is why it > was the World Trade Center rather then the Toronto Dominion Centre that > was attacked. Wogster is a mouse and thinks if he hides thoroughly enough that he won't be attacked. Such fools go to their grave never knowing what hit them. >>>Actually, the CBC does two things very well. They continue the tradition >>>of radio drama, and they service areas, that would not otherwise be >>>servicable due to lack of population. The problem with US news, and I >>>have seen some of it, is that they always take a US stand on >>>international issues. Which brings me to another issue, I have with US >>>media, how come the media is so obsessed by politics and political >>>issues, when the majority of citizens don't even care enough to vote? >> >> >> Those who do not vote are in effect also voting. They have indicated by >> not voting that they are content to let those who do vote run the ship of >> state. As a matter of fact, I absolutely do not want anyone voting who >> does not take an interest in civic affairs. Our American democracy is as >> strong and healthy as it has ever been. > > If you don't vote, you deserve the government you get stuck with. However > that doesn't answer the question, why is the US media so absorbed with > politics, and boring politics as well. What the United States needs, is a > good joke like the old Canadian Rhinoceros party (now defunct), maybe a > good toke would be better, you can have the ajuana party :-)[1] " >> Those who do not vote are in effect also voting. They have indicated by not >> voting that they are content to let those who do vote run the ship of >> state. As a matter of fact, I absolutely do not want anyone voting who >> does not take an interest in civic affairs. Our American democracy is as >> strong and healthy as it has ever been." Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                   Date: 10 Jan 2006 07:02:52 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:q4Dwf.2839$W03.259174@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>Edward Dolan wrote: > > [...] > >>>Costa Rica has the respect of the world too, even if not regarded as much >>>of a power. Canada does not have a great deficit like the US because it >>>does not pull its weight in the world like the US does. The Canadian >>>military is next to nothing. Canada is secure because of the US. The same >>>could be said for Europe too. The only bulwark in the world (thanks to >>>President Bush) for Western Civilization is the US. The very least >>>Canada could do is show some support for US policy if it does not want >>>to undertake any of the burden itself. >> >>Well, we don't really need a big military, who would we war with, everyone >>likes us, sure there has been the occassional terrorist, but domestically >>there hasn't been war since, well 1812, when we kicked America's ass. A >>little peace keeping here and there, and sending the occassional ship >>fishing illegally in our waters packing, doesn't take a big military >>force. The whole issue of without the big US military protecting the free >>world, that it would suddenly collapse, is just so much male bovine >>manure. The United States needs a big military, to secure it's oil >>supply, and that is why it's taking control of then worlds second largest >>current supplier. > > > The Mongol hordes from the steppes of Central Asia are waiting in the wings > to swoop down on you, but the US prevents it. Yeah, sure they are, those Mongol hordes are having enough trouble with other Mongol hordes, and have been having that trouble for, oh, the last 3,000 years..... They are not our problem. What is funny, is that the US always goes on about it saving the world, but in the 1990's what did the US do in Boznia, well, um, that was a European problem, and Europe resolved it. I think the US wasn't interested because Boznia is not an oil producing region. > >>Really the United States needs to lighten up, it's way to uptight, and >>that big military is in charge of the winding key. > > > Really, Canada needs to take on its fair share of the world's burden and > stop sponging off the US. We Americans are getting sick and tired of > Canadians free loading off of us. You are as bad as the Europeans that way. Well, who appointed the United States as the worlds Security Guard? The United States did, and since you volunteered for the position, because your government wanted to be known as a superpower, your stuck with it. Then again Boznia shows, your not that good at it, and things at home are not really going all that well..... I would be happy to continue the conversation, but I suggest we take it off list, it's no longer on topic here...... W                                     Date: 10 Jan 2006 21:37:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:TnNwf.3084$W03.323774@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> The Mongol hordes from the steppes of Central Asia are waiting in the >> wings to swoop down on you, but the US prevents it. > > Yeah, sure they are, those Mongol hordes are having enough trouble with > other Mongol hordes, and have been having that trouble for, oh, the last > 3,000 years..... They are not our problem. What is funny, is that the US > always goes on about it saving the world, but in the 1990's what did the > US do in Boznia, well, um, that was a European problem, and Europe > resolved it. I think the US wasn't interested because Boznia is not an > oil producing region. The US under Clinton bombed the Serbs into submission. That is the advantage of having an Air Force. I am not aware that the Europeans did anything at all even though the Balkans are in their own backyard. But the Europeans do not care if genocide occurs. They got used to the idea with Hitler. The US is really the only moral nation on the face of the earth. >>>Really the United States needs to lighten up, it's way to uptight, and >>>that big military is in charge of the winding key. >> >> >> Really, Canada needs to take on its fair share of the world's burden and >> stop sponging off the US. We Americans are getting sick and tired of >> Canadians free loading off of us. You are as bad as the Europeans that >> way. > > Well, who appointed the United States as the worlds Security Guard? The > United States did, and since you volunteered for the position, because > your government wanted to be known as a superpower, your stuck with it. > Then again Boznia shows, your not that good at it, and things at home are > not really going all that well..... All Canadians should be down on their knees thanking God for the protection that the US furnishes to the world. Without us, you would be overrun by Mongol hordes and there is nothing you could or would do about it. A more feckless nation hardly exists, except France of course. Canada and France - what a pair! > I would be happy to continue the conversation, but I suggest we take it > off list, it's no longer on topic here...... Why would I want to take anything off list with you. You are a typical Canadian, a liberal who has been brainwashed by your liberal media. I would sooner talk to the wall than talk to you. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                       Date: 11 Jan 2006 07:00:18 From: The Wogster Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > >>I would be happy to continue the conversation, but I suggest we take it >>off list, it's no longer on topic here...... > > > Why would I want to take anything off list with you. You are a typical > Canadian, a liberal who has been brainwashed by your liberal media. I would > sooner talk to the wall than talk to you. > Thread ended. W                                         Date: 11 Jan 2006 08:22:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca > wrote in message news:vr6xf.7915$W03.471731@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> >>>I would be happy to continue the conversation, but I suggest we take it >>>off list, it's no longer on topic here...... >> >> >> Why would I want to take anything off list with you. You are a typical >> Canadian, a liberal who has been brainwashed by your liberal media. I >> would sooner talk to the wall than talk to you. >> > > Thread ended. > > W A thread only ends when the Great Ed Dolan decides to end it, not some Canadian jerk who names himself The Wogster and sings off with a freaking W. By and large, I do not have any time for those who do not use their real names. I have ever found them to be scoundrels and knaves (a few exceptions) and almost without exception to be know-nothing liberals. They eat, drink and sleep liberal pabulum all their miserable lives. So what is a freaking wogster? I guess if I were him I would want to remain anonymous and nondescript as best I could too, buy why choose a name that will not resonate with anyone except yourself. I refer you to my signature for a real person who does not run and hide behind an idiotic user name and then sign off with a single pitiful letter. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 06 Jan 2006 07:18:35 From: Roger Houston Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136521258.399337.182620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at > least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish. > Yes. With a lot of hard work and study, you can look partially foolish. Like Frank.   Date: 05 Jan 2006 18:13:09 From: Hayvern Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? I have a nice 3 inch scar in my forehead from a bicycle crash in 1977. This scar would have been avoided had I been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I look like a dork, but 25 stitches in my forehead was not a lot of fun either.   Date: 05 Jan 2006 13:21:13 From: gds Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling > is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor > vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is > roughly 40% of the problem. > Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source? And don't you see a bit of a logical problem with the data if it is current? Since one can safely assume that the % of cyclists that wear helmets is much higher than the % of motorists or folks hanging out at home one possible interpretation of such data would be that helmets were successfull in yielding an extremely low serious head injury rate. I'm not claiming that is so, just suggesting a possible interpretation frrom the snippet you present. And of course the rates would have to be normalized for the amount of time etc in each activity. I think we can all agree that on average the average person spends more time in the house than riding a bike and certainly the vehicle miles per person and/or vehicle hours per person are highr than similar rates for cycling.     Date: 05 Jan 2006 22:55:30 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On 5 Jan 2006 13:21:13 -0800, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote: > >frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling >> is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor >> vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is >> roughly 40% of the problem. >> > >Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source? > >And don't you see a bit of a logical problem with the data if it is >current? Since one can safely assume that the % of cyclists that wear >helmets is much higher than the % of motorists or folks hanging out at >home one possible interpretation of such data would be that helmets >were successfull in yielding an extremely low serious head injury rate. >I'm not claiming that is so, just suggesting a possible interpretation >frrom the snippet you present. The problem with this interpretation is that the head injury rate has remained the same, percentage-wize, regardless of h*lm*t use or lack thereof in every reputable study I've seen. When h*lm*t use has increased, bicycling has remained just as safe as it was before. Outstanding reason to wear foil lined styro hats, if you ask me '-) Indiana Mike Indiana Mike > >And of course the rates would have to be normalized for the amount of >time etc in each activity. I think we can all agree that on average the >average person spends more time in the house than riding a bike and >certainly the vehicle miles per person and/or vehicle hours per person >are highr than similar rates for cycling.   Date: 05 Jan 2006 13:10:22 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > > > Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then > my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed > or brain-impaired! >From riding a bicycle? Forget about it. Before Bell had a commercial product to sell, and began (through Snell and Safe Kids) the big propaganda attack, nobody associated bicycling with serious head injury. Nobody worried about it because it essentially never happened. And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is roughly 40% of the problem. And it's not just because people don't cycle much. On a per-hour basis, walking anywhere near traffic has more serious head injuries per hour than cycling. Riding inside cars is roughly equal to cycling in serious head injuries per hour. Helmet manufacturers, their trade associations, and the "safety" societies they donate big money to (like, for example, Safe Kids Inc.) have falsely portrayed ordinary cycling as a tremendous source of serious head injuries. Don't fall for it. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 05 Jan 2006 23:05:05 From: HH Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136495422.505107.72690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... <snip > > > And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling > is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor > vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is > roughly 40% of the problem. > <snip snip snip > Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets? And the higher percentage of head injuries for accidents in cars and homes could be due to helmets never being worn when in those situations? Seems to make as much sense to me as anything else. On the other hand I generally don't read helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about. HH (who once visited an emergency room to have a bunch of gravel picked out of his head because he wasn't wearing a helmet)       Date: 06 Jan 2006 00:19:52 From: Rich Clark Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "HH" <HH@bigpicture.com > wrote in message news:RoSdnTFeO6_pZyDeRVn-tA@comcast.com... > Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries > because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets? "Most"? According to http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm the only US cities of any size with mandatory adult helmet laws are Dallas and a bunch of places in Washington State. Maybe you should compare statistics between those cities and other municipalities of the same size and climate. RichC   Date: 05 Jan 2006 13:00:41 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads > look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Like these folks? http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~edwinsel/misc_monuments.htm http://oregonfuture.oregonstate.edu/gallery/29.html http://www.ron-karpinski.com/ron-bio/hobby-bicycling.htm http://www.travelexcel.ca/pages/main_europeanbicycling.html http://tinyurl.com/b9prr How _dare_ they actually ride a bike without wearing the American sport cylcists' "full mating plumage"?? Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier. I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little ignorant. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 05 Jan 2006 18:15:50 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1136494841.676823.128230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads >> look like the jerks and dorks that they are. > > Like these folks? [...] > Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to > me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid > strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier. > > I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we > have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little > ignorant. I gave up on the esthetics of bike helmets years ago. They are designed with racers in mind, not tourists like myself. I like to wear the kind of helmets that are designed for horse riders. I think they look quite elegant, they fit nicely and they are not expensive. What is not to like about them? However, I think they will only work for recumbent cyclists, not upright cyclists. I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling. Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on Usenet.   Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:41:17 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > > Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with > logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it > relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies, Baloney - assuming you mean, as you usually do, the people using "junk science" are those who disagree with the Thompson & Rivara methods that predicted 85% benefit. Most of the people who _disagree_ with studies like T&R have looked into their methods and data far more deeply than those who agree with the study! How many pro-helmet people realize that T&R's "case" and "control" groups were different in many important ways beyond the presence of a helmet? How many people realize that the presentations to T&R's ER had a much higher percentage helmet wearing than the general population (meaning the people with helmets were _more_ likely to show up in the ER)? How many people realize that T&R's calculation methods also "prove" that helmets prevent over 70% of serious leg injuries? And most of all, how do those people explain the fact that the fantasy protection figure of 85% has never, not once, been approached in any jurisdiction that got lots of cyclists to wear helmets? There is a lot of "ignoring" going on, but it's not by the people you think. > and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account > the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. You have yet to explain how (after a mandatory helmet law) helmet wearing can suddenly increase from 30% or less to over 70%, with no detectable benefit in head injuries per rider, unless the helmets are not working. Pretending "other factors" coincidentally wiped out all the helmet benefit in the very same year of the law seems delusional at best. > A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law > was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding > of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not > fall for. I've waited for years for your explanations to counter the points I made above. You've never given them. Perhaps it's because you "lack understanding" of those points? - Frank Krygowski   Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:20:51 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Peter Clinch wrote: > > > As Steve Scharf suggests, this is probably about insurance. In the UK > various insurers have tried threatening cyclists with contributory > negligence claims when they've been injured while not wearing helmets, > but as yet none of these have been successfully pressed. The main > cycling organisation here, the Cycle Touring Club, has quite rigorously > acted against such claims. Well, bravo I say! This reminds of the gall one damned bitch-on-wheels had when I caught up with her after she swerved right in front of me to cut into a parking lot: she didn't even try to defend herself, she simply wanted to know why *I* wasn't wearing a helmet! Had to put her down when she started to say "fuck"...I asked her, pointing to her five kids in the mini-van, "you still want to fuck? You haven't had enough yet?" Motorists don't know how lucky they are I'm only on pedal-power! > Depends what sort of falling off. A sideways slide on gravel is at > least as easy, where flying over the bars is very difficult. On average > I find I don't fall off any sort of bike very often except a mountain > bike, and that's more a function of the terrain I'm not doing a very > good job of than the bike! Well, me too -- I fall off my bike like once every eight years (but when I do, it's so stupid...going really slow, too! And I still manage to draw blood...go figure) -- but, "all other things being equal," it seems like by being closer to the ground one simply puts one's foot down to stop any imbalance foreshadowing a fall. > Helmets will work by load spreading and energy absorption. The latter > will generally be far more effective than the former because there's > only so much head you can spread the load over, and the neck will often > take the whole lot at some point in any case. Polystyrene is actually > pretty effective as an absorber, but it remains the case that in the > sort of accidents that will get you killed it isn't good enough. Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed or brain-impaired! > Helmets have a track record of not doing anything much to rates of > serious injuries in cycling populations, though I certainly wear mine if > I go mountain biking because I expect to fall off and at the sort of low > speeds the EN1078 spec is built to actually tangibly help. If you think > you'll fall off wear a lid to prevent a nasty graze and a headache, but > don't assume there's much chance of it saving your life. Natch -- didn't think so. > Stronger in the sense of ability to break it in your hands, yes, but > better capable of absorbing energy? Unlikely. Great point. > Most helmets made of > tougher stuff have quite a bit of absorbing material as well as the > shell, or have a fair bit of extra room and a cradle to spread the > impact (like a site or climbing helmet, where it's a pretty safe > assumption a priy impact will come from above) Which kinds are these? If I'm gonna wear a helmet, it might as well be the best. BTW, I can see myself wearing a 5-lb. K-Pot on a bike (US Army kevlar helm). What's five pounds? I easily eat four or five at a rest stop. > Nothing stopping you organise your own rides, of course. Sure -- I hereby announce the First Annual NYC ARBR Ed Dolan Memorial 'Bent Jamboree! You must bring a girl along, though, even if she's only your sister. And last one out is a rotten eggplant! > One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different > performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be > slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a > problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy > circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at > a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to > speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you > can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group. > Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though. Many thanks for the wonderful insight. I am into group rides, but I don't do them since I don't wear a helmet and...I rather prefer to already know the people. > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 08 Jan 2006 21:16:06 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message > news:41bur1142ff7ru30nc3m555ohn0ggb05ha@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > > wrote: > [...] > >>By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect > >>committing murder by proxy. > > > > Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the > > truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head > > impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet > > will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to > > kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don > > your foil lined stryfoam hat. > > > > I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing > > them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything > > more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are > > much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats. > > > > I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright, > > of course I have riden much more since making the change as well. Most > > of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come > > close to hitting my head on anything. > > My main point was that I do not want lay folks like you and me making > decisions based on our reading of the data and/or a statistic because we are > not qualified to know what to think. We are not expert in the field of > safety. My appeal is to authority. As in all walks of life, it is best to > leave most things in their hands. > > It is very dangerous to think for yourself about most matters. It is far > better and safer to rely on the experts (in their field of expertise only) > to do our thinking for us. That way we will live longer and healthier. > > If it is possible that you and Frank K. are right, then it will be up to you > to convince the powers that be that you are right. It may be that you could > become one of those powers yourself and then dictate to the rest of us what > we should think about the matter. But until that day arrives, I will go with > the status quo, thank you very much! You may not have noticed Ed but people like Frank and Guy and others who post here are the experts. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada       Date: 09 Jan 2006 11:59:56 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? <John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca > wrote in message news:1136655438.059471.70730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message >> news:41bur1142ff7ru30nc3m555ohn0ggb05ha@4ax.com... >> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> >> > wrote: >> [...] >> >>By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect >> >>committing murder by proxy. >> > >> > Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the >> > truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head >> > impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet >> > will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to >> > kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don >> > your foil lined stryfoam hat. >> > >> > I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing >> > them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything >> > more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are >> > much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats. >> > >> > I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright, >> > of course I have riden much more since making the change as well. Most >> > of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come >> > close to hitting my head on anything. >> >> My main point was that I do not want lay folks like you and me making >> decisions based on our reading of the data and/or a statistic because we >> are >> not qualified to know what to think. We are not expert in the field of >> safety. My appeal is to authority. As in all walks of life, it is best to >> leave most things in their hands. >> >> It is very dangerous to think for yourself about most matters. It is far >> better and safer to rely on the experts (in their field of expertise >> only) >> to do our thinking for us. That way we will live longer and healthier. >> >> If it is possible that you and Frank K. are right, then it will be up to >> you >> to convince the powers that be that you are right. It may be that you >> could >> become one of those powers yourself and then dictate to the rest of us >> what >> we should think about the matter. But until that day arrives, I will go >> with >> the status quo, thank you very much! > > You may not have noticed Ed but people like Frank and Guy and others > who post here are the experts. > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada If that is true, then I am bitterly disappointed in experts. Frank K. I do not know much about, but Guy Chapman of the UK has proven himself ever to be an idiot with me on every topic under the sun. Hells Bells, he even likes Baroque and Renaissance music. I ask you, how can he possibly be an expert on anything other than his own navel. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota     Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:55:05 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then > my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed > or brain-impaired! There is no conclusive evidence that helmets have reduced serious head injuries in any population of cyclists. Cripples, paralyzed and brain damaged all count as "serious" in my book. > Which kinds are these? If I'm gonna wear a helmet, it might as well be > the best. Motorcycle helmets. You don't want to wear one on a bike... The best ones generally available for cycling are Snell certified cycle helmets (this is a tougher spec than EN1078). Again, don't expect them to improve your odds against serious injury. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 06 Jan 2006 11:11:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:426svhF1hecgiU1@individual.net... > NYC XYZ wrote: > >> Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then >> my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed >> or brain-impaired! > > There is no conclusive evidence that helmets have reduced serious head > injuries in any population of cyclists. Cripples, paralyzed and brain > damaged all count as "serious" in my book. [...] There is no conclusive evidence that Peter Clinch ever had a brain in his stupid head. If you listen to this imbecile you will end up dead and deservedly so. > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Have look at his signature. I mean really look at it. Do you want to take advice from someone this screwed up? For a proper signature I refer you to mine. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota         Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:45:06 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:11:47 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: (snip) > >> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer >> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital >> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK >> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ > >Have look at his signature. I mean really look at it. Do you want to take >advice from someone this screwed up? > >For a proper signature I refer you to mine. > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >aka >Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >or >Mr. Ed Has it occured to Mr. Dolan that Peter Clinch might be posting from a computer he also uses to communicate with his professional contacts? As an ex-librarian who has often expressed pride in being too lazy to ever look anything up I would think that you would understand someone not wanting to bother with separate sig's for separate purposes. Sometimes I really wonder about your mental health, Oh Grate One. Indiana Mike           Date: 06 Jan 2006 15:41:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:f7ltr151smbdikdvvl5jhifrpf2o6dfpsr@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:11:47 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > (snip) >> >>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer >>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital >>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK >>> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ >> >>Have look at his signature. I mean really look at it. Do you want to take >>advice from someone this screwed up? >> >>For a proper signature I refer you to mine. >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >>aka >>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>or >>Mr. Ed > > Has it occured to Mr. Dolan that Peter Clinch might be posting from a > computer he also uses to communicate with his professional contacts? > > As an ex-librarian who has often expressed pride in being too lazy to > ever look anything up I would think that you would understand someone > not wanting to bother with separate sig's for separate purposes. > > Sometimes I really wonder about your mental health, Oh Grate One. > > Indiana Mike No, I stand by my opinion of him as being one of the foremost assholes I have ever encountered on any newsgroup because of his stupid signature. Posting to a newsgroup is the most important thing you can do in life and it takes precedent over all else. It is surely a hundred times more important than being a Medical Physics IT Officer - whatever the hell that is. Old Pete should get that freaking signature off his messages and replace it with something that would let the rest of us know that he is at least sane. But he is an ego maniac. When it comes to egos, I will let no man get ahead of me in that department. My Greatness will not permit it! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:20:28 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Ack! Just set your phasers on "stun," okay? Ken M wrote: > > NO NO NO not another helmet thread! > > Ken > Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one. > -- > [T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting > calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles > per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist > > Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/   Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:19:39 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as his > signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads > look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear > something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it > might just save your life some day. Can't hurt, I know. So, back to my oddly-shaped head: what do you do for that? I have a flat back of the head, and these helmets don't fit in the manner they're supposed to in order to be effective. I dunno. I'll just wear them Kraut helmets like the Hell's Angels. > Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he does > and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no way > this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly suspect > he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free > Internet access. Well, there definitely is such a thing as Medical Physics in health care, and Officer is an offical title, though I don't recall the IT part (could it really just be Info Tech?). > Do any of us here really need to know his phone number (with extension no > less) and his fax number? If he wants to tell us that he is from Dundee, > Scotland, that is fine and all we would ever have to know about him. But he > is crazy - and you listen to him at your peril. Hmm...reminds me of the Cretan Paradox...LOL! > Regards, > > Ed Dolan - Minnesota So what else do you like to do in your spare time?     Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:50:35 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Can't hurt, I know. Actually, it can. A head with a helmet is bigger and heavier than one without so more likely to get a head hit at all, and being bigger it provides the extra leverage to add some interesting rotational leverage to your neck and spine. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 05 Jan 2006 18:04:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1136492379.744176.77860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as >> his >> signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads >> look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear >> something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it >> might just save your life some day. > > Can't hurt, I know. > > So, back to my oddly-shaped head: what do you do for that? I have a > flat back of the head, and these helmets don't fit in the manner > they're supposed to in order to be effective. > > I dunno. I'll just wear them Kraut helmets like the Hell's Angels. I like to wear a horse riding kind of helmet for my recumbent cycling. They look sharp, you can fit them perfectly and they are not expensive. Most bike helmets these days are for racers and look just awful. Esthetics count after all. >> Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he >> does >> and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no >> way >> this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly >> suspect >> he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free >> Internet access. > > Well, there definitely is such a thing as Medical Physics in health > care, and Officer is an offical title, though I don't recall the IT > part (could it really just be Info Tech?). Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this? It has nothing to do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about himself. Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know who I am. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 14 Jan 2006 20:44:19 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > See what happens when you don't edit properly. No one will know what you are > talking about, other than that you have called me a fool and I have called > you as one who appears poorly on newsgroups. You seem to understand fine enough, and I wouldn't call you no one, whatever else I call you. > Jeez, I never realized that civilizations are just games where the old > football gets passed from one to the next. You mean no people ever had any > originality. It was just all influences? What's the matter, you don't believe in evolution? > Nonsense, that was what a professor of philosophy told me once in a college > class and professors are never wrong about anything. During the class on the Cretan Paradox, no doubt. > Who knows why I saying what I am saying, Even I don't know. That is because > you do not know how to edit. Why, all you need is to pay attention! > So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of telling me > what a great Jew Stern is? > [...] I didn't say anything about stern other than what I'd said initially, which is nothing like what you've been on about all this time. And Hitler was a Jew. > One-liner responses are for idiots and that seems to be all you are capable > of. Anything more and you forget! Do you also have trouble going across the room to turn off the light? > I would like to introduce you to a guy here on ARBR who signs himself > Slugger. He is like you and the two of you should get along perfectly. But I > require intelligence in a correspondent. Furthermore, why bore and insult > these honorable newsgroups, otherwise known as RBM and ARBR. Therefore, I propose that you update your material -- or start cribbing. > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Funny...I'd imagine that Texas might suit you more.         Date: 15 Jan 2006 16:32:42 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137300259.629067.309810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: [...] >> So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of telling me >> what a great Jew Stern is? >> [...] > > I didn't say anything about stern other than what I'd said initially, > which is nothing like what you've been on about all this time. But we will never know what you said in the first place because you have edited it out of all your posts. You insult the reader when you do this. After all, we are not just writing to one another. This is a newsgroup, not email. > And Hitler was a Jew. I doubt it, but there is some mystery here apparently. [...] I will no longer respond to one-liners except for those very few which will give me an opportunity to wax eloquent on subjects of my own choosing. After all, I have readers I must consider even if you don't. One-liners are for idiots, not for Great Ones like myself. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota   Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:19:15 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure. > > I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB > sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_ > require helmets, and we were not told to do so. > > That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the > LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their > organized rides: > > http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf > > Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements. Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases. > I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of > the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true > believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids" > promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on > those blurbs. My suspicions precisely, though I also have to agree that they "can't hurt." But given my funny-shaped head -- old Army "battle buddies" (that's an official term, no joke!) used to say that it looked like someone hit me in the back of the head...with an anvil! -- I haven't come across a helmet yet which adjusts properly to be effective as prescribed. > - Frank Krygowski     Date: 05 Jan 2006 13:16:31 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you > think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then > again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even > if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases. It protects the officers of the club, it protects the ride leader, and in the case of our club protected the city that allowed us to use a meeting room, on the condition we had liability insurance. IIRC, we changed to the insurance from LAW because it was much cheaper than buying insurance on our own from an agent. This was sometime in the 1980's, when the liability insurance rates for allegedly dangerous activities went up. I remember the local Sierra Club Rock Climbing activity section losing insurance coverage through the Sierra Club, and having to make the club into a group that got together for meetings and parties, with all activities done not as official activities. Prior to the insurance company making the decision on compulsory helmets for the club, we had periodic debates regarding helmets. On one side, were the ride leaders, including myself, that thought that it should be a decision of the ride leader whether or not to require helmets, while on the other side we had the do-gooders that wanted to pass more rules to make everything safe for everybody.     Date: 05 Jan 2006 20:49:35 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.] On 5 Jan 2006 12:19:15 -0800, NYC XYZ <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote: > > My suspicions precisely, though I also have to agree that they "can't > hurt." Then I suspect you haven't read a great deal of the research. There are reasonably foreseeable mechanisms by which they could hurt (if, by that, you mean make the net injury in a given incident more serious than were the party involved not wearing a helmet). There are a number of easily foreseeable mechanisms by which they could make average net injury per mile cycled worse. Some of the statistical evidence suggests that they do (on average) 'hurt'. Quite a bit of the statistical evidence suggests they 'hurt' when compulsion is introduced. Or they might indeed not hurt, but it's not valid to say that they can't help but be better than not wearing a helmet. regards, Ian SMith --   Date: 05 Jan 2006 09:52:14 From: John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > NYC XYZ wrote: > ----------clip---- > Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of > the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so > much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced > to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary > compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location > in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of > education. This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the propaganda is in written form may be true :) I actually thought that a helmet was useful until I read some of the key papers underlying that assertion. Unforunately some of them give new meaning to the term "junk science". John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 05 Jan 2006 10:09:36 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: > This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level > of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the > propaganda is in written form may be true :) It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the difference between causation and correlation. Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies, and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data. A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not fall for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really has fallen for the junk science.       Date: 07 Jan 2006 23:03:47 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:09:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <43bd60d3$0$96014$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the >difference between causation and correlation. Which would make it more likely that stupid people were wearers, then, since that is the priy underpinning of pro-helmet research! Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken         Date: 07 Jan 2006 20:24:16 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote in message news:85i0s1hh9jp3l3i0r2vsc5i6av130vcn58@4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:09:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > said in <43bd60d3$0$96014$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>: > >>It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the >>difference between causation and correlation. > > Which would make it more likely that stupid people were wearers, then, > since that is the priy underpinning of pro-helmet research! > > Guy Has there ever been a thread about helmets in the entire history of Usenet where Guy Chapman of the UK did not show up offering his nonsense? I swear, he can smell a thread like this from a thousand miles away. Only Peter Clinch, also of the UK, can compete with him. They both have helmets on the brain to the exclusion of almost everything else. It is time to kill this thread or before you know it Guy Chapman of the UK will be offering us all kinds of idiotic studies replete with data and more statistics than you can shake a finger at proving that helmets are strictly for poor benighted souls like Ed Dolan. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota           Date: 08 Jan 2006 12:32:46 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > It is time to kill this thread or before you know it Guy Chapman of the UK > will be offering us all kinds of idiotic studies replete with data and more > statistics than you can shake a finger at proving that helmets are strictly > for poor benighted souls like Ed Dolan. "Idiotic studies". Would those be ones that don't reinforce personal opinion? SMH             Date: 08 Jan 2006 16:53:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Stephen Harding" <smharding16@msn.com > wrote in message news:OD7wf.2088$Ca4.288@trndny04... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> It is time to kill this thread or before you know it Guy Chapman of the >> UK will be offering us all kinds of idiotic studies replete with data and >> more statistics than you can shake a finger at proving that helmets are >> strictly for poor benighted souls like Ed Dolan. > > "Idiotic studies". > > Would those be ones that don't reinforce personal opinion? Yes, any study or anyone who does not agree with me 100% is ipso facto idiotic. I am really very easy to get along with. All you ever have to do is just agree with me about everything. It will also help if you will acknowledge my Greatness and praise me to High Heaven. At that point you will discover what a really nice person I am. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:46:52 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with > logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it > relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies Like the ones that tell us that various discredited "healthcare" procedures are a Really Good Idea... > and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account > the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. It looks solely there because that's where you'll find the best controlled data which is hit by the exact same factors. And anywhere you do this, despite differences in myriads of other factors between the different national population data sets, no positive change is seen is serious head injuries among helmet wearing cyclists. > studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise > statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet > the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various > variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data. It's very straightforward science. There is no positive change so we suspect no positive effect. OTOH the "legitimate control-group studies" can usually be laughed out of court for the shocking attempts at science they represent, yet people are still quoting them. > A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law > was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding > of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not > fall for. Quite so, but that's a straw man because nobody serious about a helmet sceptic position with a Clue is actually /saying/ such a thing. > I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I > found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." Is not saying what you suggest above at all. I used to consider they were necessary, and always wore one. I have since changed my mind and no longer wear one on the road. They are clearly /not/ necessary or cycling would not have been possible. I enjoy my cycling now more than when I always wore a helmet. These are all simple statements of fact and nothing to do with correlation and causation. > I'm not > sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really > has fallen for the junk science. You have fallen into the trap of reading more into a simple sentence than was there in the first place. I stated some simple facts and you tried to twist them into "junk science" for the purpose of making a straw man. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 05 Jan 2006 12:53:50 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message news:43bd60d3$0$96014$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: > >> This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level >> of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the >> propaganda is in written form may be true :) > > It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the > difference between causation and correlation. > > Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with > logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it relates > to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies, and looks > solely at whole population studies without taking into account the myriad > of other factors that can affect the whole population. These studies are > superficially impressive, including seemingly precise statistical > calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet the fundamental > criteria for science, rather they try to look at various variables, and > create inferences that are not based on the data. > > A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law > was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding of > correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not fall > for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I found out > how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not sure if this > poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really has fallen for > the junk science. Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to come to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their noggins. It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection. Case closed! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota         Date: 05 Jan 2006 22:45:46 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:53:50 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message >news:43bd60d3$0$96014$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> John_Kane@tricolour.queensu.ca wrote: >> >>> This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level >>> of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the >>> propaganda is in written form may be true :) >> >> It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the >> difference between causation and correlation. >> >> Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with >> logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it relates >> to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies, and looks >> solely at whole population studies without taking into account the myriad >> of other factors that can affect the whole population. These studies are >> superficially impressive, including seemingly precise statistical >> calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet the fundamental >> criteria for science, rather they try to look at various variables, and >> create inferences that are not based on the data. >> >> A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law >> was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding of >> correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not fall >> for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I found out >> how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not sure if this >> poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really has fallen for >> the junk science. > >Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to come >to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common >sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many >cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their >noggins. > >It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection. Case >closed! > >Regards, > >Ed Dolan - Minnesota > > Those noggins have been saved mainly from srapes, cuts, and bruises. H*lm*ts are made to a laughably low standard. While h*lm*ts should provide some protection from minor injuries, the foil lined styro hats will not offer much real protection in the case of a serious impact. I have seen many lo-o-ong threads arguing the pros and cons and have yet to see any real evidence in favor. Every reputable study I have seen referenced show no change in head injury rates with increased h*lm*t use. There can be a case made for h*lm*ts actually increasing the level of injury in some types of accidents due to increased rotational injuries. I no longer believe h*lm*ts to be a strong positive, and feel that we in the US have fallen for a flawed keting campaign. All that said, I almost alwasys wear one. I believe (maybe incorrectly) that some drivers give me a little more respect when they believe I am taking reasonable safety precautiions. Indiana Mike           Date: 05 Jan 2006 17:47:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:bd7rr11hfijif1hgk1pdsofjfkdrqog9uo@4ax.com... > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:53:50 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to >>come >>to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common >>sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many >>cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their >>noggins. >> >>It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection. >>Case >>closed! [...] > Those noggins have been saved mainly from scrapes, cuts, and bruises. > H*lm*ts are made to a laughably low standard. [...] That is good enough for me! I do not want to have my noggin scraped, cut or bruised. Again, case closed! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota       Date: 05 Jan 2006 11:35:25 From: Rich Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the > difference between causation and correlation. > > Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with > logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it > relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies, > and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account > the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These > studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise > statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet > the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various > variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data. > > A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law > was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding > of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not > fall for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I > found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not > sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really > has fallen for the junk science. Well stated. Rich   Date: 05 Jan 2006 17:00:13 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? In article <1136470037.483593.91610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, NYC XYZ (jack_foreigner@yahoo.com) wrote: > Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no? > I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the > ground as it is.... More times than I can count. Wet leaves, errant motorcars, over- enthusiastic cornering, sudden tyre blow-outs... And the closer one is to the ground when it decides to let go, the harder it is to catch any slide... > I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why > not wear a real helmet? By which I presume you mean something like a motorcycle helmet? Weight and lack of ventilation, mostly. > Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and > lighter than styrofoam? <URL:http://tinyurl.com/78ows > ? -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post Office.     Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:18:00 From: HH Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message news:MPG.1e27608e6955325f98976a@news.individual.net... > In article <1136470037.483593.91610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, NYC > XYZ (jack_foreigner@yahoo.com) wrote: > <snip > >> Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and >> lighter than styrofoam? > > <URL:http://tinyurl.com/78ows> ? > > -- > Dave Larrington - Why isn't that guy wearing cycling gloves? They optional too?   Date: 05 Jan 2006 11:59:11 From: Ken M Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of > helmetless riders? > > Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no? > I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to the > ground as it is.... > > I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why > not wear a real helmet? > > Surely someone manufactures a lightweight helmet that's stronger and > lighter than styrofoam? > NO NO NO not another helmet thread! Ken Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one. -- [T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/   Date: 05 Jan 2006 10:45:43 From: andy gee Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1136470037.483593.91610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of > helmetless riders? > > Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? Seems like a harder thing to do, no? > I mean, don't you just put your foot down -- the body's so close to > the ground as it is.... I've managed that trick. I think it is impossible, though I could be wrong, to do an endo from a bent. I was on a greenway and some kids were fooling around in front of me, and I had to manoeuver sharply -- hitting minors is poor form here. This greenway was next to the FDR drive and there was a temporary concrete construction barrier. Another 6" and my head would have been glancing and bouncing off the concrete at 18 MPH. Fortunately, I was still on the grass but I considered myself lucky that I had some protection on my head. This is a highly unusual confluence of circumstances, but it's always the thing you don't expect that trips you up. > > I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why > not wear a real helmet? I once saw the engineering specs on styrofoam/epoxy one-shot helmets, if that's what you're talking about. They're good for one crash and then you toss the styrofoam and keep your head. I'm not an engineer and I can't speak for them. I can say this about styrofoam, though. I once had an opportunity to get a look at a downed fighter plane in the middle east. I noticed that it was made of aluminum foil, styrofoam, and epoxy > --ag   Date: 05 Jan 2006 08:28:22 From: Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > SMS wrote: > > NYC XYZ wrote: > > > > > > > > In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long > > time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time > > was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue > > of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the > > same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets > > would raise the premium significantly. > > Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure. It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure. I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_ require helmets, and we were not told to do so. That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their organized rides: http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements. I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids" promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on those blurbs. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 05 Jan 2006 07:55:36 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? SMS wrote: > NYC XYZ wrote: > > > > In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long > time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time > was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue > of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the > same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets > would raise the premium significantly. Ah, great point! Why didn't I think of that! Yes, that's it for sure. > Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of > the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so > much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced > to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary > compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location > in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of > education. Hmm...but Europeans are supposed better edjamacated than US-ians, and they're zipping around carefree.   Date: 05 Jan 2006 07:00:12 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Peter Clinch wrote: > > > Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of > riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on > conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of > headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and > usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding. Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy > unclipping disasters. > > Sliding out it's just as easy. Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than compared to an upright? To fall out/off. > Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and > are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity. No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are "boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever -- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow. I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light (or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where > helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to > that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at > www.cyclehelmets.org Cool, thanks! > People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century > on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death > often painted. I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone drivers" instead! > Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more > since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one. I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only, like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection in STYRO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 05 Jan 2006 09:50:32 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only, > like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection > in STYRO-FOAM!!!!! It's one of the best materials for impact absorption, that holds its own shape. The fact that it is inexpensive may bother you, but it's widely used for impact absorption. What are you looking for? A helmet with air-bags? "http://www.sheldonbrown.com/airbag-helmet.html"     Date: 05 Jan 2006 16:08:23 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club > forces you to wear helmets! As Steve Scharf suggests, this is probably about insurance. In the UK various insurers have tried threatening cyclists with contributory negligence claims when they've been injured while not wearing helmets, but as yet none of these have been successfully pressed. The main cycling organisation here, the Cycle Touring Club, has quite rigorously acted against such claims. > Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than > compared to an upright? To fall out/off. Depends what sort of falling off. A sideways slide on gravel is at least as easy, where flying over the bars is very difficult. On average I find I don't fall off any sort of bike very often except a mountain bike, and that's more a function of the terrain I'm not doing a very good job of than the bike! > No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are > "boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever > -- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of > something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow. Helmets will work by load spreading and energy absorption. The latter will generally be far more effective than the former because there's only so much head you can spread the load over, and the neck will often take the whole lot at some point in any case. Polystyrene is actually pretty effective as an absorber, but it remains the case that in the sort of accidents that will get you killed it isn't good enough. Helmets have a track record of not doing anything much to rates of serious injuries in cycling populations, though I certainly wear mine if I go mountain biking because I expect to fall off and at the sort of low speeds the EN1078 spec is built to actually tangibly help. If you think you'll fall off wear a lid to prevent a nasty graze and a headache, but don't assume there's much chance of it saving your life. > I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light > (or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely > stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! Stronger in the sense of ability to break it in your hands, yes, but better capable of absorbing energy? Unlikely. Most helmets made of tougher stuff have quite a bit of absorbing material as well as the shell, or have a fair bit of extra room and a cradle to spread the impact (like a site or climbing helmet, where it's a pretty safe assumption a priy impact will come from above) > I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it Nothing stopping you organise your own rides, of course. One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group. Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 05 Jan 2006 07:26:24 From: SMS Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club > forces you to wear helmets! In my club in the U.S., we fought mandatory helmets on rides for a long time. What finally forced us to cave was our insurer, which at the time was the League of American Wheelmen (LAW). I suspect that the same issue of insurance is forcing the clubs and tours in your area to adopt the same policy. To obtain a policy without agreeing to require helmets would raise the premium significantly. Even before the mandatory helmet rule, I'd estimate that at least 80% of the cyclists on club rides were wearing helmets anyway. It was not so much the wearing of the helmet that we objected to, it was being forced to do so. This is why compulsion is a bad idea. OTOH the high voluntary compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of education.       Date: 07 Jan 2006 23:02:04 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 07:26:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <43bd3a93$0$96006$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >the high voluntary >compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location >in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of >education. Yes, it's well known that dot commers are *much* ster than the Dutch. Or perhaps it was exposure to relentless propaganda? No, surely not... Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken   Date: 05 Jan 2006 07:00:04 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Peter Clinch wrote: > > > Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of > riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on > conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of > headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and > usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding. Yeah, I get that impression. I hate how every goddamned tour and club forces you to wear helmets! Not only do they look dumb, and I have an oddly-shaped head besides that really defeats conventional helmet topologies (don't ask me what I had to do in the Army -- let's just say that I got headaches a lot), but...STYRO-FOAM?????? "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy > unclipping disasters. > > Sliding out it's just as easy. Hmm, I still can't really see it...is it maybe harder, at least, than compared to an upright? To fall out/off. > Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and > are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity. No, that's what I'm driving at: surely in this 21st Century there are "boutique" makers who do, I dunno, light-weight fiber-glass (whatever -- I'm sure Materials Science is mature enough a field to be capable of something like this!!!) that's cut out here and there for air flow. I know I'd pay $200, $300 for such a helmet! It'll be just as light (or a few grams heavier, for Chrissake), or even lighter, and surely stronger than STYRO-FOAM!!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where > helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to > that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at > www.cyclehelmets.org Cool, thanks! > People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century > on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death > often painted. I totally agree. They should go after those annoying "cell-phone drivers" instead! > Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more > since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one. I'd rather not, but would since clubs and tours require it -- only, like I said, I have an odd-shaped head and I can't see the protection in STYO-FOAM!!!!! "Enjoy Delicious Chinese Food!" > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 05 Jan 2006 14:45:13 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? NYC XYZ wrote: > Just curious: why does the HP Velotechnik site show photos of > helmetless riders? Visit continental Europe and you'll see thousands upon thousands of riders not wearing helmets, especially in the NL, and that's on conventional bikes with further to fall and a much greater chance of headplanting over the bars. Helmets are very much the exception and usually only seen on people doing serious sports riding. > Anyone actually fell of a 'bent? A few times, usually sliding out on gravel and a couple of comedy unclipping disasters. > Seems like a harder thing to do, no? Sliding out it's just as easy. > I'm still not sure how styrofoam is supposed to protect the head...why > not wear a real helmet? Because they weigh a large amount and aren't ventilated very well and are consequently poorly suited to aerobic activity. There was a recent flame war thread here called "Advisor wanted" where helmet efficacy was discussed ad nauseum and then some. Google back to that, or for a less flamey repository of helmet information look at www.cyclehelmets.org People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century on a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death often painted. Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 05 Jan 2006 10:42:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:424pjiF1f9rvnU1@individual.net... [...] > People have been safely cycling without helemts for well over a century on > a routine basis, it isn't the certain route to brain damage or death often > painted. > Wear one if you like, but I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more > since I found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one. > > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as his signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it might just save your life some day. Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he does and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no way this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly suspect he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free Internet access. Do any of us here really need to know his phone number (with extension no less) and his fax number? If he wants to tell us that he is from Dundee, Scotland, that is fine and all we would ever have to know about him. But he is crazy - and you listen to him at your peril. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota       Date: 15 Jan 2006 08:07:33 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? The Wogster wrote: > > > I think I was in Grade 10, when our school got a pair of PETs in the > school library, and you had to sign out computer time, and nerdy types > always had a cassette tape in their shirt pockets. Rebels had a > cigarette pack in the same pocket, and Jocks didn't wear shirts with > pockets. The best programmer of the grade was this kid named Steven Solution -- I kid you not! It was great fun, programming in Basic and Logo. One thing I remember was this Turkish kid who used to go around grabbing other guys' asses for a prank (he only did this with his friends). Finally this German kid, Anthony, who's now a California surfer hunk dude, threatened to beat him up. That put a stop to it. I'd never even heard of a computer until then. I was extremely puzzled when the computer asked me what was my name, how was I feeling, etc. This was the famous "Eliza" AI program who had me spooked! Everyone else was dying of laughter. > Nope, I type this on an old IBM that I bought 5 years ago..... Apple > have always been too pricey, and black boxes. The IBM I can upgrade, > but will probably just replace. I still read Jerry Pournelle, but these > days it's online. > > W Hm, I wonder where those guys from Iowa (Info mag) are these days? Too bad Computer Gaming World got sold and is now corporate. Those were the days! They actually made games which told stories. I actually miss cleverly-designed 8-bit graphics!       Date: 14 Jan 2006 17:37:36 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Edward Dolan wrote: > > > You have so far appeared rather poorly here on these newsgroups. Which statement completes the syllogism with the conclusion that you are, therefore, a fool. > The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from us > in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even the > Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of civilization I > care about began with the West at about the time of the Renaissance in > Italy. Which looked back to Greece, which was inspired by the people of the Levant, who drew from ancient Sumer.... > Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth > than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's mouth > and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! That was about RIBS, actually, and it didn't concern Aristotle. > The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, but > still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and is > always severely limited in what it can know. And you're telling me this because...? > You indicated that you thought Howard Stern was the cat's pajamas in > contradistinction to Rush Limbaugh. Stern is scum and Limbaugh is not. Need > more be said? Yeah, for your own benefit, so that you get your own story straight: limhog is not scummy and liberal like joo stern? Then who the hell is "he"?? > The main thing you need to know about me is that I am the laziest person in > the world. Not only that, but I take great pride in being so lazy. > Therefore, I will NEVER go back and look up anything. It either gets posted > right in the first place or it is lost forever as far as I am concerned. Lemme guess...you only ride along in a tandem 'bent. > Nope, include everything that you want me to respond to and I will. I do not > bother to even remember what I say from one moment to the next. I am too > Great for that. I leave the trifling details of life to my inferiors, and > their numbers are legion. And how many cats do you have? > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Maybe you should wear a helmet next time!         Date: 14 Jan 2006 20:17:33 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1137289056.701181.175020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> >> You have so far appeared rather poorly here on these newsgroups. > > Which statement completes the syllogism with the conclusion that you > are, therefore, a fool. See what happens when you don't edit properly. No one will know what you are talking about, other than that you have called me a fool and I have called you as one who appears poorly on newsgroups. >> The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different from >> us >> in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them. Even the >> Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of civilization >> I >> care about began with the West at about the time of the Renaissance in >> Italy. > > Which looked back to Greece, which was inspired by the people of the > Levant, who drew from ancient Sumer.... Jeez, I never realized that civilizations are just games where the old football gets passed from one to the next. You mean no people ever had any originality. It was just all influences? >> Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth >> than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's >> mouth >> and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic! > > That was about RIBS, actually, and it didn't concern Aristotle. Nonsense, that was what a professor of philosophy told me once in a college class and professors are never wrong about anything. >> The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways, >> but >> still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and is >> always severely limited in what it can know. > > And you're telling me this because...? Who knows why I saying what I am saying, Even I don't know. That is because you do not know how to edit. >> You indicated that you thought Howard Stern was the cat's pajamas in >> contradistinction to Rush Limbaugh. Stern is scum and Limbaugh is not. >> Need >> more be said? > > Yeah, for your own benefit, so that you get your own story straight: > limhog is not scummy and liberal like joo stern? So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of telling me what a great Jew Stern is? [...] One-liner responses are for idiots and that seems to be all you are capable of. I would like to introduce you to a guy here on ARBR who signs himself Slugger. He is like you and the two of you should get along perfectly. But I require intelligence in a correspondent. Furthermore, why bore and insult these honorable newsgroups, otherwise known as RBM and ARBR. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota       Date: 14 Jan 2006 09:57:14 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Re: No Helmets Needed? Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > I don't think "Saint Ed Dolan" will be riding anything like that > anytime soon! > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley Besides, the hills are too steep for him.