Bill Zaumen

Bill Zaumen is a Usenet troll who inhabits some of the rec.bicycles hierarchy. He is harmless but tiresome.

Zaumen's usual modus operandi is as follows:


 * Make a clueless assertion (e.g. helmets good, psychlepaths good, whatever)
 * When this is rebutted, accuse those rebutting of being zealots

One of Zaumen's most common tactics is to protest in tones of wounded innocence that he was not the one being dogmatic. Yet, strangely, it always seems to be those who cite evidence and show comprehensive understanding of the subject who are "liars" and "zealots". Zaumen has never been known to use qualifying terms or to couch his opinion as anything other than immutable fact - a typical troll, in other words. The thread where he argued with that other long-time rec.bicycles.* troll Michael Vandeman was particularly amusing: the two are clearly made for each other.

An amusing facet of Zaumen's strange internal world is the fact that he spells his name backwards in his signature to foil spammers. I don't think spammers use the sig lines, they use email addresses and headers, but Zaumen thinks they use names from sig lines and ISPs from headers and combine them to make email addresses. Well, maybe they do, but nobody else seems to be worried about it.

The dictionary of Zaumenisms
Zaumen's idiocies are sufficiently repeatable that an abbreviated dictionary of Zaumenisms has been drawn up:


 * Authoritative: Agreeing with Zaumen
 * Babble: Trouncing Zaumen's bogus arguments
 * Baseless: Supported by evidence, e.g. transcripts or cited studies
 * Content-free: Containing content Zaumen dislikes, esp. when Zaumen feels the need to evade it in order to maintain his cherished illusions
 * Garbage: Reasoned argument, generally with links
 * Idiocy: Proving that Zaumen is wrong
 * Ignored:
 * Zaumen response to inconvenient facts
 * Where a Zaumen assertion is so self-evidently risible as to be beyond parody, one is said to have "ignored" it (and thuis, naturally, to have accepted it as true) if one fails to dignify it with a full and authoritative response.
 * Lie: Disagreeing with Zaumen
 * Misrepresentation: Any statement which disagrees with Zaumen's interpretation, especially when based on more detailed knowledge
 * Obvious: That which is self-evidently false but fits with Zaumen's cherished beliefs
 * On-Message: Consistency, especially when conflicting with Zaumen's cherished beliefs
 * Peeve: Issue on which one disagrees with Zaumen
 * Rant: Disagreeing with Zaumen, citing evidence
 * Reasonable: Agreeing with Zaumen, especially when this also means disagreeing with those who have any actual knowledge of the subject
 * Shameless: Daring to disagree with Zaumen
 * Snipped: Evaded by Zaumen, especially of inconvenient facts
 * Spin: Presenting facts in a way which conflicts with Zaumen's cherished beliefs
 * Transference: Challenging Bill's behaviour
 * Troll: Refusing to let Zaumen get away with a bogus assertion
 * Untenable: A position is said to be untenable when it conflicts with Zaumen's cherished beliefs to the extent that he cannot bear to see it stated
 * Whining:
 * Poking fun at Zaumen's trolling;
 * Calling Zaumen on his double standards.

The Amazing Bell V1
The greatest example of Zaumen idiocy yet recorded is the argument over the aerodynamic properties of helmets, which saw Zaumen using studies stating that helmets are less aerodynamic than an unhelmeted head to "prove" that his Bell V1 helmet was more aerodynamic than an unhelmeted head.

This thread should tell you everything you need to know about this idiot and why it's not worth arguing with him, other than for entertainment value.