this post says “there is some good evidence that helmets are more detrimental than beneficial”
Re: Mild concern - advice, please
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, boo radley <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > I’d be interested to see a reference to the posts that claim helmets
> > are more dangerous.
>
> ‘this post’ (http://tinyurl.com/y4pmyj) says “there is some good
> evidence that helmets are more detrimental than beneficial”
Nice selective quoting. I’m curious about why you cut out from my
message the bit that said:
[color=darkred]
>>> 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”.[/color]
It came just before the bit you quoted.
Alternatively, can you explain to me why the message you’ve dug up,
which apparently says “there is some good evidence that helmets are
more detrimental than beneficial” is different to where I suggested
previous messages have said no more than that “there is some evidence
that suggests helmets are more dangerous”?
As I stated, I don’t think anyone has ever posted to this group that
helmets are definitely more harmful than good, only that there is some
evidence that contradicts the (frequent) assertion that helmets are
definitely and always beneficial. Since it has been stated that this
crops up often enough to irritate some, I’d be interested to see it,
because obviously it has somehow all managed to pass me by.
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
I think that this is a clear attempt to assassinate you. They want the photo of your helmet so that the guy in the book suppository knows what to aim for. I’d say move to another country and change your name
that sounds like a mighty big suppository
No, because sarcasm is by its nature unpleasant, and my comment was nicely meant with friendly tongue in cheek.
worddd