Nuxx:Ee015f99-8c4e-4780-a1b6-81e128aef4c1@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - advice required please - a ban is pending!!! Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:44:13 -0700 (PDT) References: <907utnFbdfU1@mid.individual.net> <90840tFgscU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1302299054 10257 127.0.0.1 (8 Apr 2011 21:44:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3129 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40602

On Apr 8, 1:24=A0pm, Judith  wrote: > On 8 Apr 2011 09:49:19 GMT, Tony Raven  wrote: > > >"The Todal"  wrote: > > >> Yes, you may well be right. The efficacy of cycle helmets may well be = in > >> doubt, depending on which expert you consult. However it would be > >> irresponsible for a body of cyclists who resent on principle being com= pelled > >> to wear helmets, to search only for experts who support their point of= view > >> and who design test simulations that are intended to show that helmets= are > >> unhelpful. > > >Most of us were helmet wearers who changed their minds when we reviewed = the > >evidence on both sides and found the evidence for helmets to be highly > >questionable and a lot of good evidence that they offer no or negative > >benefit. > > Have you got a =A0list of scientific papers which shows that they have ne= gative effect - I can't find > any?

How about having the courtesy to reply to Judith this time, Tony? Unless you don't have a convincing answer of course?

It's just that you complain of Judith "interspersing your posts with abuse" (although "challenging your posts" seems closer to the mark to me), but perhaps if you showed conclusively just how wrong Judith was, then she'd go away with her tail between her legs, and be too embarrassed and underconfident to post any more "abusive" replies? Worth a shot isn't it? Nothing to lose, surely, if the situation's already as bad as you say?

Although actually, of course, there is something to lose: if you reply to Judith's points and then lose the argument then you'll be the one who's embarrassed. You being afraid of that is the only reason I can see why you would consistently read but refuse to answer Judith's replies to you. Not very good, is it Tony Hawk?