URCM rejection 000002
Tom Crispin
There had been some discussion in URCM about the cost of cycle helmets
and it had been suggested that £10 was just about the cheapest cyclist
helmet on the market.
I posted a link to charity that sells cyclist helmets to schools and
community groups at £7.50 per helmet.
The post was allowed.
There were two follow-ups to my post.
One of the follow-ups was this:
Message-ID: <2s69169fdvv6ubiks...@4ax.com>
====================
>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
<http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
====================
And that post suggested to me a certain level of personal animosity
between the poster and the site owner. I tried to claify is there was
personal animosity, and if so the reason for the animosity.
====================
>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>
>Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
><http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>
>No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
=====================
My post was blocked.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12764624759162.txt
Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
Sara Merriman
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
[snippy snippy snip]
>
> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
In this case I'd say it was. I didn't think the post you were replying
to showed animosity towards the site owner whereas your reply on the
read to me as though you were trying to pick an argument.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Janet
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com...
> Context...
>
> There had been some discussion in URCM about the cost of cycle helmets
> and it had been suggested that £10 was just about the cheapest cyclist
> helmet on the market.
No it was not. The poster said he paid "a tenner", not that the cheapest was
£10
> I posted a link to charity that sells cyclist helmets to schools and
> community groups at £7.50 per helmet.
£7.50 per helmet, with a minimum order of 20. Buying in bulk is a lot
different to buying single helmets.
> The post was allowed.
Yes it was, even though it was to a very controvesial pressure group as far
as cycling and the helmet debate are concerend.
> There were two follow-ups to my post.
>
> One of the follow-ups was this:
> Message-ID: <2s69169fdvv6ubiks...@4ax.com>
>
> ====================
>
>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>
> Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
> <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>
> No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
>
> ====================
>
> And that post suggested to me a certain level of personal animosity
> between the poster and the site owner. I tried to claify is there was
> personal animosity, and if so the reason for the animosity.
>
> ====================
To me the comment just says that the helmet promoter in this case does not
ride bikes, it does not suggest personal animosity.
>>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>>
>>Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
>><http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>>
>>No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
>
> It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
> someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
> purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
Which to me reads like a personal attack against the person you were
replying to.
> My post was blocked.
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12764624759162.txt
> Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
> helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
> and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
> animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
To me you appear to be trolling, either for a response in urcm, or so that
you could complain about the rejection here.
> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
You know very well that the woman concerned is not just a helmet vendor, you
are being very disingenuous in your complaint here.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
>someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
>purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
I have no animosity towards, say, Andrew Curran, who I found most
civil and prepared to consider that there may be better ways to
improve the world.
Angela Lee, on the other hand, is a shroud-waver, is known as
aggressive and often unpleasant (including towards families who
decline to allow her to use their misfortune for propaganda) and the
website you linked is still using the long-discredited 85% figure, as
is its owner.
BeHIT does not promote the *use* of helmets, they promote compulsion.
They run "cycle safety" events at schools which consist of "wear a
helmet, duh!" and precisely bugger all about safe cycling. Something
you, Tom, would never do.
I put them in the same box as parents who send their kids on Scout
cycle rides with plastic hats and no brakes.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Tom Crispin
>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>news:6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com...
>> Context...
>>
>> There had been some discussion in URCM about the cost of cycle helmets
>> and it had been suggested that £10 was just about the cheapest cyclist
>> helmet on the market.
>
>No it was not. The poster said he paid "a tenner", not that the cheapest was
>£10
Nevertheless, the suggestion was that a £10 was just about the
cheapest helmet on the market.
>> I posted a link to charity that sells cyclist helmets to schools and
>> community groups at £7.50 per helmet.
>
>£7.50 per helmet, with a minimum order of 20. Buying in bulk is a lot
>different to buying single helmets.
Indeed. But I would not expect schools and community groups to sell
those helmets on at a profit.
>> The post was allowed.
>
>Yes it was, even though it was to a very controvesial pressure group as far
>as cycling and the helmet debate are concerend.
Do you think that it was wrong for the moderators to allow a link to a
'controversial pressure group' which sells good value cyclist hemets?
>> There were two follow-ups to my post.
>>
>> One of the follow-ups was this:
>> Message-ID: <2s69169fdvv6ubiks...@4ax.com>
>>
>> ====================
>>
>>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>>
>> Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
>> <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>>
>> No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
>>
>> ====================
>>
>> And that post suggested to me a certain level of personal animosity
>> between the poster and the site owner. I tried to claify is there was
>> personal animosity, and if so the reason for the animosity.
>>
>> ====================
>
>To me the comment just says that the helmet promoter in this case does not
>ride bikes, it does not suggest personal animosity.
It is the tactic, similar to Judith's tactic, of posting links to
photos, seemingly designed to induce ridicule, that suggest animosity.
Furthermore, the poster maintains a web page on the helmet vendor's
charity which uses terms like *helmet zealots* and *outright
fabrications*.
>>>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>>>
>>>Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
>>><http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>>>
>>>No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
>>
>> It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
>> someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
>> purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
>
>Which to me reads like a personal attack against the person you were
>replying to.
I tried to load the question in as neutral terms as I could. How could
I have improved the wording.
>> My post was blocked.
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12764624759162.txt
>
>> Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
>> helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
>> and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
>> animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
>
>To me you appear to be trolling, either for a response in urcm, or so that
>you could complain about the rejection here.
I was certainly curious as to the response, and I am also curious as
to why the poster felt the need to post a link to a photo of Angela
Lee wearing a helmet.
>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>
>You know very well that the woman concerned is not just a helmet vendor, you
>are being very disingenuous in your complaint here.
Indeed - and I am more than just a cyclist. In the context of the
discourse the woman was a helmet vendor. It may wll be that the
perceived animosity has nothing to do with her being a helmet vendor,
but that could be the subject of any reply - denied in URCM.
Tom Crispin
It was the link to the photo of Angela Lee that suggested animosity.
Of course I was trying to pick an argument... Argument and debate is
the primary purpose of Usenet. Block all argument and what is left?
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:12:10 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
>>someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
>>purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
>
>I have no animosity towards, say, Andrew Curran, who I found most
>civil and prepared to consider that there may be better ways to
>improve the world.
>
>Angela Lee, on the other hand, is a shroud-waver, is known as
>aggressive and often unpleasant (including towards families who
>decline to allow her to use their misfortune for propaganda) and the
>website you linked is still using the long-discredited 85% figure, as
>is its owner.
I took care to post a link to a pdf file, not a web site, I was
concerned that a link to the website might be blocked. The web site
seems to be quoting an "up to 88%" figure.
>BeHIT does not promote the *use* of helmets, they promote compulsion.
>They run "cycle safety" events at schools which consist of "wear a
>helmet, duh!" and precisely bugger all about safe cycling. Something
>you, Tom, would never do.
Are you sure that it right? The website suggests it promotes what it
believe to be safe cycling, and while that includes the correct use of
a helmet (as an essential) it also encourages children to get cycle
training which is a particularly effective safety measure.
>I put them in the same box as parents who send their kids on Scout
>cycle rides with plastic hats and no brakes.
Yes - I have come across a fair few of those, but I put it down to
ignorance rather than an intent to cause harm.
====================
Do you think that it was right that my post was blocked and the debate
stifled in urcm?
Simon Brooke
>> Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
>> helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
>> and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
>> animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
>
> To me you appear to be trolling, either for a response in urcm, or so
> that you could complain about the rejection here.
The latter, I think.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Simon Brooke
Informed, courteous and enlightening debate, from which all participants
who are not utterly closed minded emerge with their opinions modified.
Pedt
Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wibbled
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:23:59 +0100, Sara Merriman
><sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com>,
>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>[snippy snippy snip]
>>>
>>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
>>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>>
>>In this case I'd say it was. I didn't think the post you were replying
>>to showed animosity towards the site owner whereas your reply on the
>>read to me as though you were trying to pick an argument.
>
>It was the link to the photo of Angela Lee that suggested animosity.
>
>Of course I was trying to pick an argument...
There's better ways to argue than being needlessly inflammatory. Some
serious re-wording would probably had it passed.
I'd say that your post deserved to be rejected. The one you replied to
was, IMV, a bit on the borderline side of things but I suspect I'd have
come to the same conclusion as the moderator who accepted it.
--
Pedt
Toom Tabard
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:21:27 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:23:59 +0100, Sara Merriman
>
> >>In article <6tjc16dv6t10730blrt1adu2d5q8abp...@4ax.com>,
> >> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
> >>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>
> >>In this case I'd say it was. I didn't think the post you were replying
> >>to showed animosity towards the site owner whereas your reply on the
> >>read to me as though you were trying to pick an argument.
>
> > It was the link to the photo of Angela Lee that suggested animosity.
>
> > Of course I was trying to pick an argument... Argument and debate is the
> > primary purpose of Usenet. Block all argument and what is left?
>
> Informed, courteous and enlightening debate, from which all participants
> who are not utterly closed minded emerge with their opinions modified.
My, another from your Joyce Grenfell collection
> ;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Have you tried putting your head under it and keeping it there.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
Toom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Crispin
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <p60d16lc01tov4rv8...@4ax.com>, at 20:21:27 on
>Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wibbled
>>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:23:59 +0100, Sara Merriman
>><sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com>,
>>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snippy snippy snip]
>>>>
>>>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
>>>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>>>
>>>In this case I'd say it was. I didn't think the post you were replying
>>>to showed animosity towards the site owner whereas your reply on the
>>>read to me as though you were trying to pick an argument.
>>
>>It was the link to the photo of Angela Lee that suggested animosity.
>>
>>Of course I was trying to pick an argument...
>
>There's better ways to argue than being needlessly inflammatory. Some
>serious re-wording would probably had it passed.
Before posting the message I looked carefully at two other posts that
had been passed to see what was and what was not acceptable:
Message-ID: <QIc*Qe...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Message-ID: <Yak*kJ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
I felt that my post was considerably less inflammatory than my chosen
mentor's posts. Clearly I misjudged.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>I took care to post a link to a pdf file, not a web site, I was
>concerned that a link to the website might be blocked. The web site
>seems to be quoting an "up to 88%" figure.
Mate, that's like posting a deep link into Safespeed and pretending
you were somehow "careful". BeHIT are probably the single most
powerful force in deterring cycling, that was never going to be a good
idea.
>>BeHIT does not promote the *use* of helmets, they promote compulsion.
>>They run "cycle safety" events at schools which consist of "wear a
>>helmet, duh!" and precisely bugger all about safe cycling. Something
>>you, Tom, would never do.
>
>Are you sure that it right? The website suggests it promotes what it
>believe to be safe cycling, and while that includes the correct use of
>a helmet (as an essential) it also encourages children to get cycle
>training which is a particularly effective safety measure.
Absolutely 100% certain. They are in my home town.
>>I put them in the same box as parents who send their kids on Scout
>>cycle rides with plastic hats and no brakes.
>Yes - I have come across a fair few of those, but I put it down to
>ignorance rather than an intent to cause harm.
That is not the case with beHIT: they are well aware that the headline
figures they use are simply indefensible, yet they continue to use
them.
>Do you think that it was right that my post was blocked and the debate
>stifled in urcm?
The debate isn't stifled, you can always post your question in a way
that is more tactful. If, that is, you don't already have all the
answer you want.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Nevertheless, the suggestion was that a £10 was just about the
>cheapest helmet on the market.
And just as a matter of simple fact, in Evans today (when I went
looking at the Garmin Edge range, which looked quite interesting but
is perhaps too bike-specific for the amount of bike-only use it will
get), the average price of helmets on display was just under £50 -
rather more than my estimate.
I seem to recall that the standard advice is always to try for fit
before buying. Especially if you're buying ten of them, I guess.
Danny Colyer
> Of course I was trying to pick an argument... Argument and debate is
> the primary purpose of Usenet. Block all argument and what is left?
Erm, information? Social interaction? Argument, IMO, is very much
*not* the purpose of usenet. Reasoned, polite, informative debate can be.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Janet
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:25:37 +0100, "Janet" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>news:6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com...
>>> Context...
>>>
>>> There had been some discussion in URCM about the cost of cycle helmets
>>> and it had been suggested that £10 was just about the cheapest cyclist
>>> helmet on the market.
>>
>>No it was not. The poster said he paid "a tenner", not that the cheapest
>>was
>>£10
>
> Nevertheless, the suggestion was that a £10 was just about the
> cheapest helmet on the market.
There was no such suggestion, however that is not the problem.
>>> I posted a link to charity that sells cyclist helmets to schools and
>>> community groups at £7.50 per helmet.
>>
>>£7.50 per helmet, with a minimum order of 20. Buying in bulk is a lot
>>different to buying single helmets.
>
> Indeed. But I would not expect schools and community groups to sell
> those helmets on at a profit.
But individuals cannnot buy from that organisation for that price.
>>> The post was allowed.
>>
>>Yes it was, even though it was to a very controvesial pressure group as
>>far
>>as cycling and the helmet debate are concerend.
>
> Do you think that it was wrong for the moderators to allow a link to a
> 'controversial pressure group' which sells good value cyclist hemets?
No, but they should keep a very close eye on the responses.
>>To me the comment just says that the helmet promoter in this case does not
>>ride bikes, it does not suggest personal animosity.
>
> It is the tactic, similar to Judith's tactic, of posting links to
> photos, seemingly designed to induce ridicule, that suggest animosity.
> Furthermore, the poster maintains a web page on the helmet vendor's
> charity which uses terms like *helmet zealots* and *outright
> fabrications*.
What about a link to a website that is very controversial in the helmet
debate. I could argue that your link to BHIT was designed to illicte a
response other than "look how cheap those helmets are." Your tactic is very
similar to the tactic you are complaining about. You should not act
surprised when someone like guy rose to the bait.
>>>>>Cycle helmets are £7.50 here:
>>>>>http://www.bhit.org/downloads/HelmetPromo.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Incidentally, here's the site owner wearing one:
>>>><http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/e/e9/AngelaLeeHelmet.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>No bike in sight, but I've never heard of her riding one.
>>>
>>> It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
>>> someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
>>> purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
>>
>>Which to me reads like a personal attack against the person you were
>>replying to.
>
> I tried to load the question in as neutral terms as I could. How could
> I have improved the wording.
>
>>> My post was blocked.
>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12764624759162.txt
>>
>>> Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
>>> helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
>>> and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
>>> animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
>>
>>To me you appear to be trolling, either for a response in urcm, or so that
>>you could complain about the rejection here.
>
> I was certainly curious as to the response, and I am also curious as
> to why the poster felt the need to post a link to a photo of Angela
> Lee wearing a helmet.
No, you knew very well what you were posting, and how some people would
respond.
>>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
>>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>>
>>You know very well that the woman concerned is not just a helmet vendor,
>>you
>>are being very disingenuous in your complaint here.
>
> Indeed - and I am more than just a cyclist. In the context of the
> discourse the woman was a helmet vendor.
Would you use Bill Gates as an example of a philanthropist in a unix user
group?
John Major as an average banker in uk.politics?
Calling the woman "a helmet vendor" in a thread about the viability of
helmet standards is just trolling.
> It may wll be that the
> perceived animosity has nothing to do with her being a helmet vendor,
> but that could be the subject of any reply - denied in URCM.
You know very well why guy replied the way he did. You were just trolling
for a response, or a message rejection, so that you could come here and
complain about being badly treated.
Tom Crispin
>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>news:p8vc165ugb7i60clc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:25:37 +0100, "Janet" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>>news:6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com...
>>>> Context...
>>>>
>>>> There had been some discussion in URCM about the cost of cycle helmets
>>>> and it had been suggested that �10 was just about the cheapest cyclist
>>>> helmet on the market.
>>>
>>>No it was not. The poster said he paid "a tenner", not that the cheapest
>>>was
>>>�10
>>
>> Nevertheless, the suggestion was that a �10 was just about the
>> cheapest helmet on the market.
>
>There was no such suggestion, however that is not the problem.
==========
I paid a tenner for my current EPS helmet new off Ebay. The cheapest
full face helmet I can find (not on Ebay) is �35.
==========
The poster spoke of paying �10 for his helmet and then went on to
discuss the cheapest full face helmet he could find. The suggestion is
there.
>>>> I posted a link to charity that sells cyclist helmets to schools and
>>>> community groups at �7.50 per helmet.
>>>
>>>�7.50 per helmet, with a minimum order of 20. Buying in bulk is a lot
>>>different to buying single helmets.
>>
>> Indeed. But I would not expect schools and community groups to sell
>> those helmets on at a profit.
>
>But individuals cannnot buy from that organisation for that price.
Yes. I think that it is very clear in the pdf file that the offer is
for schools and community groups.
>>>> The post was allowed.
>>>
>>>Yes it was, even though it was to a very controvesial pressure group as
>>>far
>>>as cycling and the helmet debate are concerend.
>>
>> Do you think that it was wrong for the moderators to allow a link to a
>> 'controversial pressure group' which sells good value cyclist hemets?
>
>No, but they should keep a very close eye on the responses.
>
>>>To me the comment just says that the helmet promoter in this case does not
>>>ride bikes, it does not suggest personal animosity.
>>
>> It is the tactic, similar to Judith's tactic, of posting links to
>> photos, seemingly designed to induce ridicule, that suggest animosity.
>> Furthermore, the poster maintains a web page on the helmet vendor's
>> charity which uses terms like *helmet zealots* and *outright
>> fabrications*.
>
>What about a link to a website that is very controversial in the helmet
>debate. I could argue that your link to BHIT was designed to illicte a
>response other than "look how cheap those helmets are." Your tactic is very
>similar to the tactic you are complaining about. You should not act
>surprised when someone like guy rose to the bait.
The �7.50 helmets were the cheapest I could find. The link was correct
in the context of cheap helmets as being discussed.
Of course I knew what I was posting. I knew I risked being blocked - I
always run that risk when posting to urcm - but certainly did not know
that would be the response.
>>>> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
>>>> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
>>>
>>>You know very well that the woman concerned is not just a helmet vendor,
>>>you
>>>are being very disingenuous in your complaint here.
>>
>> Indeed - and I am more than just a cyclist. In the context of the
>> discourse the woman was a helmet vendor.
>
>Would you use Bill Gates as an example of a philanthropist in a unix user
>group?
>John Major as an average banker in uk.politics?
>Calling the woman "a helmet vendor" in a thread about the viability of
>helmet standards is just trolling.
The comment I was responding to was about cheap helmets.
>> It may wll be that the
>> perceived animosity has nothing to do with her being a helmet vendor,
>> but that could be the subject of any reply - denied in URCM.
>
>You know very well why guy replied the way he did. You were just trolling
>for a response, or a message rejection, so that you could come here and
>complain about being badly treated.
Not true. I was certainly asking for a response, possibly leading to a
debate and argument, but that is what Usenet is for.
Geoff Berrow
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:
Well on the face of it 'here is a photograph' isn't bad but on looking
at the photograph one can see that there is another motive. Publishing
the photo clearly wasn't done for any pleasant purposes - it was done
as a way of pouring scorn on the site owner and as an attempt to diss
her helmet advocacy attempts.
I don't have a problem with that but Tom should have least been able
to ask if this was the genuine meaning.
(can I just point out that I am neutral on helmets - I believe it
should be down to individual choice)
From what we have seen this site is peddling (heh..) misinformation
and deserves to be discussed. Once again we are seeing over-zealous
moderation.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
kat
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> said
> On 14/06/2010 20:21, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Of course I was trying to pick an argument... Argument and debate is
>> the primary purpose of Usenet. Block all argument and what is left?
>
> Erm, information? Social interaction? Argument, IMO, is very much
> *not* the purpose of usenet. Reasoned, polite, informative debate
> can be.
According to the Compact Oxford, "argument " has two meanings. Clearly, you
prefer the first - "a heated exchange of diverging or opposite views". But
it can also be " a set of reasons given in support of something". - thus you
present your arguments, Tom presents his, etc etc. I don't know
precisely what Tom meant, but I didn't personally feel he meant "flame war",
even if he was thinking "heated discussion".
I do think he could have phrased his post better, but I also think he
deserved a reasoned answer to it, because it does seem that the site owner's
personal views on complusion have no relevance to the price of helmets.
--
kat
>^..^<
Jon Ribbens
> (can I just point out that I am neutral on helmets - I believe it
> should be down to individual choice)
I suspect many of the combatants would consider that not to be a
neutral position ;-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Well on the face of it 'here is a photograph' isn't bad but on looking
> at the photograph one can see that there is another motive. Publishing
> the photo clearly wasn't done for any pleasant purposes - it was done
> as a way of pouring scorn on the site owner and as an attempt to diss
> her helmet advocacy attempts.
No, it was just humour. If the intention was to do her down then I'd
have used Carlton Reid's photo: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/images/0/0e/Angie.jpg
Sometimes people do levity just because.
--
Guy
Iain
news:6tjc16dv6t10730bl...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> It appears that you harbour a lot of personal animosity towards
> someone who promotes the use of bicycle helmets. Is this animosity
> purely because she promotes helmets, or is there something more to it?
>
> =====================
>
> My post was blocked.
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12764624759162.txt
>
> Clearly there was some topic drift from the subjest of cheap cyclist
> helmets to the personal relationship between a cyclist helmet vendor
> and a cyclist. But was the rejection of my post questioning the
> animosity between a cyclist and a helmet vendor justified?
>
> Or was my suggestion that there is animosity between the cyclist and
> the helmet vendor needlessly infammatory?
Are you really surprised that this was blocked? I snipped everything except
for the final paragraph which I would classify as inflammatory.
In another post you asked, "Do you think that it was right that my post was
blocked and the debate stifled in urcm?". I would have to answer that it
was right to reject your post purely on the basis of the one above
paragraph. I shall not comment on the rest because with this one paragraph,
you pushed it over the limit.
Not being particularly technical minded, it could be that the rest of the
post, without the above paragraph or maybe with it phrased in a less
confrontational way, may well have been passed.
'Ace' might want to have a look at your above paragraph as an example of
what would not be 'valid debate'.
Iain
Geoff Berrow
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Jun 15, 8:42�am, Geoff Berrow <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well on the face of it 'here is a photograph' isn't bad but on looking
>> at the photograph one can see that there is another motive. Publishing
>> the photo clearly wasn't done for any pleasant purposes - it was done
>> as a way of pouring scorn on the site owner and as an attempt to diss
>> her helmet advocacy attempts.
>
>No, it was just humour.
Well yeah, I got the humour. Wear a cycle helmet and you can look as
good as meeeee!
Simon Brooke
I think you'd be straining to name three. JMS, Nuxxy, and ...?
--
Simon Brooke
> Anyway since you "don't read URC", and I've never posted to URCM on the
> subject of helmets (obviously I'd be censored), how do you know what I
> think about helmets?
Do you really think I have that short a memory, Nuxxy?
Simon Brooke
> On Jun 15, 10:11 pm, Simon Brooke <stillyet+n...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:02:52 -0700, Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> > Anyway since you "don't read URC", and I've never posted to URCM on
>> > the subject of helmets (obviously I'd be censored), how do you know
>> > what I think about helmets?
>>
>> Do you really think I have that short a memory, Nuxxy?
>
> I was under the impression that you had never read URC. In any event
> I've only ever made a handful of posts about helmets. Still, as ever,
> you're obviously right since you're a URCM moderator.
If you check Google, you'll find I'm still the person who has made the
most posts to uk.rec.cycling ever. Not because I posted a lot all at
once, but because I posted there for a very long time.
I think you should wear a helmet more often - your memory is clearly
impaired.
> While we're on awkward questions, do you still maintain that good
> driving is about always being able to stop if someone runs/cycles/
> drives right into your path without warning?
Yes, I do, and I think a mandatory life sentence is the appropriate
response - normally suspended immediately but on condition that the
offender never drives again.
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:01:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-15, Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>> (can I just point out that I am neutral on helmets - I believe it
>>> should be down to individual choice)
>>
>> I suspect many of the combatants would consider that not to be a neutral
>> position ;-)
>
>I think you'd be straining to name three. JMS, Nuxxy, and ...?
And you will no doubt have a substantial list of posts where I have
advocated compulsion.
Perhaps you could repeat just say two, or three.
--
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
JMS
<derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 15, 10:11 pm, Simon Brooke <stillyet+n...@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:02:52 -0700, Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> > Anyway since you "don't read URC", and I've never posted to URCM on the
>> > subject of helmets (obviously I'd be censored), how do you know what I
>> > think about helmets?
>>
>> Do you really think I have that short a memory, Nuxxy?
>
>I was under the impression that you had never read URC. In any event
>I've only ever made a handful of posts about helmets. Still, as ever,
>you're obviously right since you're a URCM moderator.
>
>Thanks for carefully avoiding my other questions BTW...very
>illuminating. You're getting *really* sick of URCM moderation and the
>constant kneejerk deception that comes with it, aren't you? Never
>mind, I'm sure that Clive George and Chapman would be happy to replace
>you. (Although you're already a few mods down and you haven't
>replaced them...is no-one up to the job as far as you're concerned?
>Is there no-one left who has all the "right" opinions and hasn't blown
>their chances by making it obvious that they're a wannabe? Doesn't
>bode well if so....)
>
>While we're on awkward questions, do you still maintain that good
>driving is about always being able to stop if someone runs/cycles/
>drives right into your path without warning? I never did tear that
>one apart, and would have enjoyed doing so, because it's just *so*
>ridiculous.
You are being very unfair to him - he is perhaps one of the world's
best drivers.
He has said of himself:
"I believe that if I am driving or cycling there is no chance of a
child running out in front of me and causing an accident."
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Ho, ho, ho you really are funny Guy.
Was it you who photoshopped the Angela Lee photograph to add the
helmet.
You need not have done so - there are plenty of undoctored photos of
people wearing helmets who look real knobs:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.nsf/images/gchn-5g8ggb/$file/stinger-2.jpg
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Percy Picacity
news:v2rv161hn2fvca7lo...@4ax.com:
>
> Perhaps you could repeat just say two, or three.
>
All the ones with the same sig as you used on this message?
--
Percy Picacity
JMS
Just because I highlight the views of the BMA in a sig - does not mean
that I actually agree with it.
Feel free to point out where I have actually advocated compulsory
helmets.
(I will give you half an apology as I realise that the introductory
words
"The BMA view of helmets:"
has been lost from the sig - I will return it there.)
--
The BMA view of helmets: