I got home this evening to find a PM awaiting me. It was from someone who registered on the forum today, and has never posted a thread or a reply. Their profile gave no further details of their identity.
The post sought to engage me in discussion of a subject (full face helmnets) that has not been aired in any detail in this forum for a while, and on which I have not posted for possibly several months - but it started by expressing agreement with my stated views.
It then asked me to send a photo of my helmet (ooer, missus, etc.)
On the one hand, I like to make newcomers to the forum welcome. On the other hand, this is very unusual behaviour. The norm would be to post a query with the word “noob”, “newby” or (preferably, but rarely) “neophyte” in the subject line.
So, am I being overly suspicious, or is there something I should be cautious of here? Has anyone else had similar direct contact from a new and “unpublished” member of the forum?
My full face hemet is an Odyssey BMX helmet. I seldom wear it except for the most extreme riding.
When I hadn’t been a member of the forum for very long, somebody who had never posted emailed me. I think it was to talk about 29ers so I must have been on the forum for a few months.
We send a couple of emails back and forth. He has never posted on the forum and I haven’t heard from him since. He didn’t ask me to send him a photo though.
Hmmm, I’d like to see a photo of you.
Cause although when we’re in dialog we’re don’t always agree, but at most of your posts I more often feel an “amen” (as in well spoken)!
I think part of what made me more suspicious was the reference to helmets. From time to time over the last few years, this forum has been subject to “raids” by the more outspoken part of the anti-helmet lobby, looking for a platform for their views.
Anyway, nice guy though I am, I’m not taking photographs of my kit, uploading and saving them, specially to post them to a stranger.
I avoid your predicament by leaving the PM feature turned off. This confuses some forum users, who are unable to figure out that my email address appears in every post I make.
I get lots of unsolicited emails from unicycling newbies, due to my own web site and the many postings I’ve done to unicycling.org and various other places over the years. If a request sounds strange, I usually just ask why they want to know. Sometimes I also ask how they found me or why they chose me as the person to ask.
Anti compulsion, Mike, not anti helmet. It’s an important distinction and one that I find myself having to correct people on too often. The last person I had to correct was the South Gloucestershire Road Safety Officer, who gave an otherwise very interesting presentation at the last S Glos cycle forum.
In my view the prospect of helmet compulsion is one of the greatest threats facing cycling in the UK, and I will continue to actively campaign against it. I presume that you’re referring to Ian Smith rather than to me, but our views seem generally to match.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Danny Colyer <> wrote:
>
> Mikefule wrote:
> > From time to time over the last few years, this forum has been subject
> > to “raids” by the more outspoken part of the anti-helmet lobby, looking
> > for a platform for their views.
>
> In my view the prospect of helmet compulsion is one of the greatest
> threats facing cycling in the UK, and I will continue to actively
> campaign against it. I presume that you’re referring to Ian Smith
> rather than to me, but our views seem generally to match.
If he is, it’s a curious definition of ‘raid’, since I’m here almost
all the time.
Curious definition of ‘few years’ too, since I’ve been reading the
newsgroup since well before it was latched onto by a web site.
As to platform - there’s relatively little point trying to argue
anyone that’s made up their minds already. I consider that there is
benefit, however, in putting on record the observation that most of
the pro-helmet argument is in fact completely lacking in rational,
scientific basis, and there is some good evidence that helmets are
more detrimental than beneficial. Consequently, if someone is going
to post irrational assertions for the wonderfulness of helmets (‘it
saved my life’, ‘I know for a fact I’d be a vegetable today’,
‘everyone must wear a helmet’, blaah blaah ad nauseum) I’m going to
point out the errors in their assertions, and the contradictory
evidence. If you (or anyone else) wants a platform to air your views
unchallenged, you’ll need to find one that’s not so public.
For the record, I usually but not always wear a helmet. I am against compulsion. I do not accept unquestionningly the arguments for either side in the “helmets save lives” debate, but I would prefer the anti-compulsin argument to be honestly expressed as “I think it is wrong to be compelled to wear a helmet when I can make my own assessment of the risk,” rather than, as is sometimes the case, “Helmets are actually more dangerous.”
Ditto with other controversies. If fox hunters said, “I like hunting foxes, and I don’t think you have the right to stop me,” I would disagree, but I would respect their case more than when they go looking for spurious reasons to justify thier sport on environmental, social or economic grounds. Ditto with people who eat meat (I am a vegetarian): just say, “I like eating meat and don’t see why I should stop,” instead of attacking my (supposed) reasons for chosing not to eat meat.
I did not have Ian Smith or any other individual in mind when I made my earlier comment - just a vague recollection of occasional outbursts of ritual pro/anti bickering.
But back to the thread: I am always wary of people with no “history” approaching me direct over the internet and trying to establish correspondence. If it had been someone with 100 posts who had established a presence in the forum, and who was responding to a specific post I had made on a subject in which they had shown interest, I wouldn’t have worried. At 44, I would hate to be groomed by a sinister figure in a dirty mac posing as an innocent teenager.
On Thu, 30 Nov, Mikefule <> wrote:
>
> For the record, I usually but not always wear a helmet. I am against
> compulsion. I do not accept unquestionningly the arguments for either
> side in the “helmets save lives” debate, but I would prefer the
> anti-compulsin argument to be honestly expressed as “I think it is
> wrong to be compelled to wear a helmet when I can make my own
> assessment of the risk,” rather than, as is sometimes the case,
> “Helmets are actually more dangerous.”
The only case I have ever seen presented on this group is that
“helmets may be more dangerous”, or “there is some evidence that
suggests helmets are more dangerous”. The point is that the opposing
argument is almost invariably ‘wearing a helmet will save your life’,
or ‘a helmet saved my life’ or ‘it’s a no-brainer’, or ‘they can’t
hurt’, or similar. That argument is wrong, irrespective of whether
helmets are, overall, good or bad on average.
I’d be interested to see a reference to the posts that claim helmets
are more dangerous.
Well most people recognised me in BUC the year before from my description of myself. I said I was short and fat with short hair. Although to be fair, there wasn’t an overwhelming number of 40 year old women there.
Although to be fair, there wasn’t an overwhelming number of 40 year old women there.