Cunobelin wears a lid

[swansonj]

Why do you assume that carers = mental illness? Perhaps it says more about you than anything.

I will happily live with whatever it says about me, thank you.

 

[Poacher]

Is that the final doogment on this?

I wouldn't be that doogmatic!

 

[classic33]

I wouldn't be that doogmatic!

Wasn't that the name of the dog from Asterix?

 

[doog]

Oh dear... doog's kicking off again and making a prime tit of himself.

Perhaps someone could let his carers know?

dullard

 

[mjr]

Wasn't that the name of the dog from Asterix?

How do you get doogmatic confused with Idéfix?

 

[doog]

Just back from a game of golf....luckily I survived a head injury despite not taking the Cunobelin risk assessment......

He could learn from this, he hasnt mentioned golfers ...yet

 

[classic33]

How do you get doogmatic confused with Idéfix?

Same dog, seperate tounges

 

[doog]

Is it worth introducng a "Doog Statement" to the forum.. perhaps we could call it a "Doogment"

If not stating in each post that you may (or may not be wearing a helmet) is "fraud", then so much of the content of this forum is invalid.

.. and please forgive me because I am guiilty

I have posted on trailer threads, without declaring that I also use panniers

I have given advice on children's bikes, without pointing out that I don't actually ride one

I have posted on threads about recumbent trikes without making it clear that I also own several Uprights

I have recommended tres without making it clear that not all my fleet of bikes have these tyres

Perhaps we should lean from this thread and make "Doogments" mandatory

very good...however due to popular demand im posting a few of your posts from CTC.....to wade through the lot would probably kill me with boredom and take me several years. No one and I repeat no one has been immune from the 'Conubelin method' of debating about helmets....the method is such that if you wear one for whatever reason - its the wrong reason. Only Conubelin (who wears one) knows best....However he doesnt wear one when engaging in the other activities he risk assesses to be more dangerous than cycling...............why? Only he can answer.


It is the reason that helmets should be compulsory in any "Olde Worlde" pub with low beams

I was walking down the stairs with a laundry basket and hit my head when I missed the bottom step
I now have a cut on my head..... again not anecdotal
Is this proof that helmets should be worn whilst doing laundry?


Of course the obvious reason why is that the number of pedestrian admissions far exceeds those of cyclists and any research involving ALL hed injuries requiring treatment would end up as "unequivocal" proof for pedestrian helmets

The real analogy for helmets is being expected to wear a lifejacket when in a canoe, but not needing one when in a speedboat

The gullible accept the lies because they support the preconceptions, and there is no interest in the truth or reality.

Two really

1. To show that the argument for use is so good that these organisations blatantly lie and mislead to reinforce it
2. It is called "informed consent" - knowing all the FACTS before making a decision

The sad thing is that if either BHIT or Headway told the same sort of lies about a drug, they would have been closed down by now!

Are the head of the people drinking (61%), suffering an assault (34%) or experiencing a simple fall (43%) not also vulnerable, and would the helmet not also have presented a buffer in these instances as well?
Or we could ask the same question again, with another slant:
Meier Hillman looked at deaths due to head injuries
34.8% were pedestrians and 46.2% were in a vehicle compared to 5.9% being cyclists
Given that helmets are self- evidently a good thing: your head is vulnerable, accidents happen, injuries occur to the head, polystyrene presents a buffer between your head and a hard surface, why are we not advocating for these far more common incidences?
It is entirely hypocritical to advocate helmet use in a group that suffers far fewer head injuries?

My first thought about this infantile playground stance is that is is rather tragic
The average 5 year old can see trough that one!

The other comparison (that I was keeping in reserve) is that shoes can cause harm and injury in the same way as helmets can cause harm and injury

AS posted before, the fixation on cyclists is a bizarre one
It is a bit like announcing a new cancer drug, that will treat prostate cancer and then testing it on a group of children who are unlikely to be afflicted

YOU are eventually going to have to explain how these are in any way a justification for cycle helmet use for the average cycle helmet, but somehow the same unequivocal statements do not seem to justify the average car driver wearing one!

If you are going to try and use this is a to support a reason for the average cyclist to wear a helmet, you will need to explain why the same measures by the RAC/ AcU are not an argument for the average driver to wear one. I suspect that will not happen

Very simile really........

1. Accept that a helmet will prevent head injuries
2. Count the number of cyclists head injuies being admitted and could have been "prevented"
3. Count the number of pedestrian head injuries that are admitted and could have been "prevented

Then realise that the number of pedestrians is far greater than the number of cyclists

Ask yourself whether pedestrian helmets or cycle helmets would have a greater benefit?

 

[ufkacbln]

dullard

Capitalisation please

(Doogment...

I declare that I own a dictionary, but do not have any bias as to whether this particular dictionary should be the one used. However I also declare that I believe that some dictionaries offer a higher standard and more protection form grammatical than others.

Overall i declare that I am pro choice, it is up t the individual to use a dictionary or not.)

 

[Mugshot]

Could you put all the posts up that these were replies to please?

 

[swansonj]

very good...however due to popular demand im posting a few of your posts from CTC.....to wade through the lot would probably kill me with boredom and take me several years. No one and I repeat no one has been immune from the 'Conubelin method' of debating about helmets....the method is such that if you wear one for whatever reason - its the wrong reason. Only Conubelin (who wears one) knows best....However he doesnt wear one when engaging in the other activities he risk assesses to be more dangerous than cycling...............why? Only he can answer.


It is the reason that helmets should be compulsory in any "Olde Worlde" pub with low beams

I was walking down the stairs with a laundry basket and hit my head when I missed the bottom step
I now have a cut on my head..... again not anecdotal
Is this proof that helmets should be worn whilst doing laundry?


Of course the obvious reason why is that the number of pedestrian admissions far exceeds those of cyclists and any research involving ALL hed injuries requiring treatment would end up as "unequivocal" proof for pedestrian helmets

The real analogy for helmets is being expected to wear a lifejacket when in a canoe, but not needing one when in a speedboat

The gullible accept the lies because they support the preconceptions, and there is no interest in the truth or reality.

Two really

1. To show that the argument for use is so good that these organisations blatantly lie and mislead to reinforce it
2. It is called "informed consent" - knowing all the FACTS before making a decision

The sad thing is that if either BHIT or Headway told the same sort of lies about a drug, they would have been closed down by now!

Are the head of the people drinking (61%), suffering an assault (34%) or experiencing a simple fall (43%) not also vulnerable, and would the helmet not also have presented a buffer in these instances as well?
Or we could ask the same question again, with another slant:
Meier Hillman looked at deaths due to head injuries
34.8% were pedestrians and 46.2% were in a vehicle compared to 5.9% being cyclists
Given that helmets are self- evidently a good thing: your head is vulnerable, accidents happen, injuries occur to the head, polystyrene presents a buffer between your head and a hard surface, why are we not advocating for these far more common incidences?
It is entirely hypocritical to advocate helmet use in a group that suffers far fewer head injuries?

My first thought about this infantile playground stance is that is is rather tragic
The average 5 year old can see trough that one!

The other comparison (that I was keeping in reserve) is that shoes can cause harm and injury in the same way as helmets can cause harm and injury

AS posted before, the fixation on cyclists is a bizarre one
It is a bit like announcing a new cancer drug, that will treat prostate cancer and then testing it on a group of children who are unlikely to be afflicted

YOU are eventually going to have to explain how these are in any way a justification for cycle helmet use for the average cycle helmet, but somehow the same unequivocal statements do not seem to justify the average car driver wearing one!

If you are going to try and use this is a to support a reason for the average cyclist to wear a helmet, you will need to explain why the same measures by the RAC/ AcU are not an argument for the average driver to wear one. I suspect that will not happen

Very simile really........

1. Accept that a helmet will prevent head injuries
2. Count the number of cyclists head injuies being admitted and could have been "prevented"
3. Count the number of pedestrian head injuries that are admitted and could have been "prevented

Then realise that the number of pedestrians is far greater than the number of cyclists

Ask yourself whether pedestrian helmets or cycle helmets would have a greater benefit?

Mate, the level of obsession you are now demonstrating cannot be healthy for you. For your own sake as well as for all of ours: you've made your point, we've all had a chance to form whatever judgement we're going to of it, can't you please let it rest now?

 

[ufkacbln]

very good...however due to popular demand im posting a few of your posts from CTC.....to wade through the lot would probably kill me with boredom and take me several years. No one and I repeat no one has been immune from the 'Conubelin method' of debating about helmets....the method is such that if you wear one for whatever reason - its the wrong reason. Only Conubelin (who wears one) knows best....However he doesnt wear one when engaging in the other activities he risk assesses to be more dangerous than cycling...............why? Only he can answer.


It is the reason that helmets should be compulsory in any "Olde Worlde" pub with low beams

I was walking down the stairs with a laundry basket and hit my head when I missed the bottom step
I now have a cut on my head..... again not anecdotal
Is this proof that helmets should be worn whilst doing laundry?


Of course the obvious reason why is that the number of pedestrian admissions far exceeds those of cyclists and any research involving ALL hed injuries requiring treatment would end up as "unequivocal" proof for pedestrian helmets

The real analogy for helmets is being expected to wear a lifejacket when in a canoe, but not needing one when in a speedboat

The gullible accept the lies because they support the preconceptions, and there is no interest in the truth or reality.

Two really

1. To show that the argument for use is so good that these organisations blatantly lie and mislead to reinforce it
2. It is called "informed consent" - knowing all the FACTS before making a decision

The sad thing is that if either BHIT or Headway told the same sort of lies about a drug, they would have been closed down by now!

Are the head of the people drinking (61%), suffering an assault (34%) or experiencing a simple fall (43%) not also vulnerable, and would the helmet not also have presented a buffer in these instances as well?
Or we could ask the same question again, with another slant:
Meier Hillman looked at deaths due to head injuries
34.8% were pedestrians and 46.2% were in a vehicle compared to 5.9% being cyclists
Given that helmets are self- evidently a good thing: your head is vulnerable, accidents happen, injuries occur to the head, polystyrene presents a buffer between your head and a hard surface, why are we not advocating for these far more common incidences?
It is entirely hypocritical to advocate helmet use in a group that suffers far fewer head injuries?

My first thought about this infantile playground stance is that is is rather tragic
The average 5 year old can see trough that one!

The other comparison (that I was keeping in reserve) is that shoes can cause harm and injury in the same way as helmets can cause harm and injury

AS posted before, the fixation on cyclists is a bizarre one
It is a bit like announcing a new cancer drug, that will treat prostate cancer and then testing it on a group of children who are unlikely to be afflicted

YOU are eventually going to have to explain how these are in any way a justification for cycle helmet use for the average cycle helmet, but somehow the same unequivocal statements do not seem to justify the average car driver wearing one!

If you are going to try and use this is a to support a reason for the average cyclist to wear a helmet, you will need to explain why the same measures by the RAC/ AcU are not an argument for the average driver to wear one. I suspect that will not happen

Very simile really........

1. Accept that a helmet will prevent head injuries
2. Count the number of cyclists head injuies being admitted and could have been "prevented"
3. Count the number of pedestrian head injuries that are admitted and could have been "prevented

Then realise that the number of pedestrians is far greater than the number of cyclists

Ask yourself whether pedestrian helmets or cycle helmets would have a greater benefit?

Oh dear, oh dear

Having realised that you have been unable to provide any evidence on this site you have selectively posted form another, again most out of context

As with here.... the evidence is the same... ths photo is from 1995

Please tell me you are not going to make the same absurd claims that have been so comprehensibly shown to be false

 

[ufkacbln]

very good...however due to popular demand

Now that is in the wrong thread, there is a "Bad Joke" thread elsewhere

 

[doog]

Oh dear, oh dear

Having realised that you have been unable to provide any evidence on this site you have selectively posted form another, again most out of context

As with here.... the evidence is the same... ths photo is from 1995

Please tell me you are not going to make the same absurd claims that have been so comprehensibly shown to be false

Your'e the king of absurd claims...Im simply adding golf to your library, you could probably get some real mileage out of it.

 

[jonny jeez]

very good...however due to popular demand im posting a few of your posts from CTC.....to wade through the lot would probably kill me with boredom and take me several years. No one and I repeat no one has been immune from the 'Conubelin method' of debating about helmets....the method is such that if you wear one for whatever reason - its the wrong reason. Only Conubelin (who wears one) knows best....However he doesnt wear one when engaging in the other activities he risk assesses to be more dangerous than cycling...............why? Only he can answer.


It is the reason that helmets should be compulsory in any "Olde Worlde" pub with low beams

I was walking down the stairs with a laundry basket and hit my head when I missed the bottom step
I now have a cut on my head..... again not anecdotal
Is this proof that helmets should be worn whilst doing laundry?


Of course the obvious reason why is that the number of pedestrian admissions far exceeds those of cyclists and any research involving ALL hed injuries requiring treatment would end up as "unequivocal" proof for pedestrian helmets

The real analogy for helmets is being expected to wear a lifejacket when in a canoe, but not needing one when in a speedboat

The gullible accept the lies because they support the preconceptions, and there is no interest in the truth or reality.

Two really

1. To show that the argument for use is so good that these organisations blatantly lie and mislead to reinforce it
2. It is called "informed consent" - knowing all the FACTS before making a decision

The sad thing is that if either BHIT or Headway told the same sort of lies about a drug, they would have been closed down by now!

Are the head of the people drinking (61%), suffering an assault (34%) or experiencing a simple fall (43%) not also vulnerable, and would the helmet not also have presented a buffer in these instances as well?
Or we could ask the same question again, with another slant:
Meier Hillman looked at deaths due to head injuries
34.8% were pedestrians and 46.2% were in a vehicle compared to 5.9% being cyclists
Given that helmets are self- evidently a good thing: your head is vulnerable, accidents happen, injuries occur to the head, polystyrene presents a buffer between your head and a hard surface, why are we not advocating for these far more common incidences?
It is entirely hypocritical to advocate helmet use in a group that suffers far fewer head injuries?

My first thought about this infantile playground stance is that is is rather tragic
The average 5 year old can see trough that one!

The other comparison (that I was keeping in reserve) is that shoes can cause harm and injury in the same way as helmets can cause harm and injury

AS posted before, the fixation on cyclists is a bizarre one
It is a bit like announcing a new cancer drug, that will treat prostate cancer and then testing it on a group of children who are unlikely to be afflicted

YOU are eventually going to have to explain how these are in any way a justification for cycle helmet use for the average cycle helmet, but somehow the same unequivocal statements do not seem to justify the average car driver wearing one!

If you are going to try and use this is a to support a reason for the average cyclist to wear a helmet, you will need to explain why the same measures by the RAC/ AcU are not an argument for the average driver to wear one. I suspect that will not happen

Very simile really........

1. Accept that a helmet will prevent head injuries
2. Count the number of cyclists head injuies being admitted and could have been "prevented"
3. Count the number of pedestrian head injuries that are admitted and could have been "prevented

Then realise that the number of pedestrians is far greater than the number of cyclists

Ask yourself whether pedestrian helmets or cycle helmets would have a greater benefit?

to be fair doog (and I speed read them as i need to do the washing up) in none of these examples do I see any comment suggesting they shouldn't be worn.

Berating the evidence and means used to gather it yes...but not the actual practice of wearing one.

Although, to add some yin to that yang i recall being called stupid (or something of the like) for stating that I wear a lid because I cant see that it hurts me to do so...after a super quick search,I cant find the quote but hope it wasn't Conubelin that said it.