Say, here's an idea... Let's start a satirical Google Group and call it "Helmet War"???? Like screaming curses into a paper bag when I'm fed up, this could be a no-holds barred forum with no rules; just enter at your own peril, and simply regard the scorch marks on the back of your head (as you flee for your life) as the price of pure entertainment ... I'm only being half-facetious. My real point is that people need a place to speak their minds and where they can (and should) laugh at themselves... If we can't do that here, honestly why are we wasting our breath having a dialogue in the first place?... This is the land of free speech, of free ideas. That's not to say we shouldn't point out to each other when we're going off-topic, being mean-spirited or just plan pig-headed... but to suggest we not speak of certain topics because they may fan a few flames or spark healthy debate is contrary to the very principle of a forum.
I have great respect for everyone on this forum (especially Jim, our unselfish moderator), and I hope that's shared by all. But I left the iBOB group because I felt we were being challenged to stay within a certain box. Are we suggesting to create one here? Respectfully yours, Bobby "please don't box me in" Birmingham On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:27:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen S wrote: > > How about we just let the old thread, this thread, and any future threads > on helmets die? It seems that this thread brought everything the topic back > up again under the guise about talking about the discussion of helmets. > > just saying > Stephen > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:42:48 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: >> >> I meant sociobiology as a theory -- it has come under much criticism >> recently and, intrinsically, doesn't make sense anyway, just as any other >> reductionist theory of knowing. I don't mean to pick a fight at all; I just >> feel obliged to say that sociobiology is not a good tool by which to >> analyze this (or any other) value or opinion. >> >> My only other comment on this thread will be to urge anyone who has some >> definite statistics on the dangers of cycling and the related value of >> helmets to please post sources and links. I myself will immediately start >> using a helmet if it can be proved (1) that cycling is statistically >> significantly more dangerous than other common activities and (2) helmets >> help reduce this statistical risk. Again, not trolling, not being snide: I >> really want to know. >> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < >> thil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Just so everyone is clear, I never said, or meant to suggest, directly >>> or indirectly, that your political leanings are inextricably tied to your >>> helmet attitude. The point was that there may be biological reasons why we >>> find agreement difficult, or impossible. In that case, convincing arguments >>> will generally be fruitless. >>> >>> But there is a similarity in that it is a seemingly irreconcilable issue >>> and each of the two opposing camps seem to not place any importance on the >>> argument of the other side. Most of us would like to think that we come by >>> our attitudes and beliefs through a process of informed logic, but that is >>> probably not 100% true, of course, because we tend to weigh certain "facts" >>> more heavily than others for various reasons. A classic nature vs nurture >>> puzzle. If intelligent people exposed to the same information cannot come >>> to an agreement, then maybe intelligence and information are not the only >>> determining factors. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:47:09 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest we leave sociobiology out of this discussion. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < >>>> thil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now, Steve, I assume you're being humorous, but I can't say for sure >>>>> because I've learned over the years that you and I most likely have very >>>>> different personalities (based only on the limiting medium of this >>>>> discussion forum). I bet we have different brain structure, even if >>>>> similar >>>>> intelligence. But no, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps some PhD >>>>> student >>>>> will identify and analyze that correlation someday, but my PhD years are >>>>> well behind me! >>>>> >>>>> All I'm saying is that we seem to have two sides in this debate (as in >>>>> politics), and for the most part they talk past each other because, I >>>>> believe, our brains are wired to light up in response to different >>>>> inputs. >>>>> It would be nice if there was an objectively "right" answer that >>>>> perfectly >>>>> intelligent people could agree on! >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:59:58 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 09:56 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Discussing this topic in a different way is a puzzle, isn't it? On >>>>>> my >>>>>> > (helmet-free) ride to work today, I thought of an article I read >>>>>> > several years ago, about brain scientists identifying brain >>>>>> structure >>>>>> > differences between political conservatives and political liberals. >>>>>> > Finally an explanation of why these two groups can't understand >>>>>> each >>>>>> > other! The difference was primarily in identification of and >>>>>> response >>>>>> > to risks. The conservatives tended to have enlarged brain sectors >>>>>> that >>>>>> > were wired to identify and rapidly respond to risks. In other >>>>>> words: >>>>>> > "there's a risk, kill it!" The liberals tended to be enlarged in >>>>>> the >>>>>> > sectors that handle analysis and nuance. In other words: "this may >>>>>> or >>>>>> > may not be a risk, study it some more!" Not sure if order of >>>>>> causality >>>>>> > has yet been established. I don't know if politics correlates to >>>>>> > helmet attitudes, but it seems like the same pattern exists here. >>>>>> On >>>>>> > one hand, you have the helmet proponents who relate strongly to >>>>>> > graphic examples of cracked skulls, and on the other hand, you have >>>>>> > the group (typified by GP, I'd say) who seemingly cannot relate to >>>>>> > graphic examples and who tend to spend lots of bandwidth picking >>>>>> apart >>>>>> > the flaws in the statistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you're saying the conservatives favor helmets and liberals do not? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/* >>>>> *msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/**0L54ao9Iwg8J<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/0L54ao9Iwg8J> >>>>> . >>>>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@** >>>>> googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>> group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." >>>> -- Claude Cockburn >>>> >>>> ------------------------- >>>> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA >>>> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW >>>> http://resumespecialties.com/**index.html<http://resumespecialties.com/index.html> >>>> ------------------------- >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/eubNqI6-a-0J. >>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." >> -- Claude Cockburn >> >> ------------------------- >> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA >> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW >> http://resumespecialties.com/index.html >> ------------------------- >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/w0IzZ8OzYxsJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
