Look at all the heated debated regarding helmet LAW

[DiscoDuck]

The fact that it is such a contentious issue is proof enough to allow
freedom of choice to prevail.
To those claiming to be worried about taxes, or lives, stop
pretending. You are not fooling anyone. We know the true motive is
ego and control. You simply cannot admit you are wrong and want to
force others to abide by your choices.
Right Edward Dolan? Right Robert Broughton? Why don't the two if you
meet up, attempt to pro-create, or adopt, and make your own little
nation where no one would have choices, but would have to abide by
your will?

[Eric®]

Post by DiscoDuck
The fact that it is such a contentious issue is proof enough to allow
freedom of choice to prevail.

I don't think that most people in favour of helmet legislation give a
shit about cycling or cyclists. They are in favour of telling other
people what to do.

Like you said - bc.cycling is rocking these days. It used to be a very
'happening' newsgoup; and it was one of the first in Canada.


Unfortunately it's rocking for the wrong reasons - dontcha think?

Eric Schild

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Eric®
Unfortunately it's rocking for the wrong reasons - dontcha think?
Eric Schild

Eric, I have followed you posts and normally agree with you. But in
this case I feel it is "rockin" for the right reasons. Enough of us
are finally are speaking out instead standing quiet or being
apethetic.

APATHY is what got us in this mess in the first place.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Eric®

Post by DiscoDuck
The fact that it is such a contentious issue is proof enough to allow
freedom of choice to prevail.

I don't think that most people in favour of helmet legislation give a
shit about cycling or cyclists. They are in favour of telling other
people what to do.

Now there is a bright idea. To paraphrase you, I don't think most people
give a shit about telling other people what to do. Legislation is a long and
arduous process and it mostly gets considered and passed to protect idiots
like you from yourself. Obey the law or go to jail. What ever you do, don't
listen to an idiot like DiscoDuck. That moron will get you killed.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
Now there is a bright idea. To paraphrase you, I don't think most people
give a shit about telling other people what to do. Legislation is a long and
arduous process and it mostly gets considered and passed to protect idiots
like you from yourself. Obey the law or go to jail. What ever you do, don't
listen to an idiot like DiscoDuck. That moron will get you killed.

Proved you WRONG AGAIN Eddy boy. I'm alive and well and cycling still
WITHOUT A HELMET!

Legislation is NOT difficult at all. All you have to do is come up
with a popular idea. COsidering law makers get PAID A LOT of money to
do this, it really quite easy.

No,I will NOT obey this law (nor many others).
I can see you in your little dungeon angry a seething.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Eric®

Post by Edward Dolan
Now there is a bright idea. To paraphrase you, I don't think most

people

Post by Edward Dolan
give a shit about telling other people what to do. Legislation is a

long and

Post by Edward Dolan
arduous process and it mostly gets considered and passed to protect

idiots

Post by Edward Dolan
like you from yourself. Obey the law or go to jail. What ever you do,

don't

Post by Edward Dolan
listen to an idiot like DiscoDuck. That moron will get you killed.

Proved you WRONG AGAIN Eddy boy. I'm alive and well and cycling still
WITHOUT A HELMET!
Legislation is NOT difficult at all. All you have to do is come up
with a popular idea. COsidering law makers get PAID A LOT of money to
do this, it really quite easy.
No,I will NOT obey this law (nor many others).
I can see you in your little dungeon angry a seething.

You are nothing but a criminal, worthy of being imprisoned for your
transgressions. Legislation is extremely difficult and something that an
idiot like you could never do. Your advocacy for breaking the law makes you
little better than a terrorist, the ultimate law breaker. May you rot in
hell for all eternity. You are an evil person and not worthy to be living in
a civilized society. You belong in a place like Antarctica all by your
lonesome where you could express your savagery without limits. In short,
you are beneath contempt.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
You are nothing but a criminal, worthy of being imprisoned for your
transgressions. Legislation is extremely difficult and something that an
idiot like you could never do. Your advocacy for breaking the law makes you
little better than a terrorist, the ultimate law breaker. May you rot in
hell for all eternity. You are an evil person and not worthy to be living in
a civilized society. You belong in a place like Antarctica all by your
lonesome where you could express your savagery without limits. In short,
you are beneath contempt.

Oh edward you are so cute when you get crazy. Laws are easily passsed
as displayed by the typs oflaws passed. For instance did you know it
is unlawful to ride a bike without a helmet? Did you know the same is
true of seatbelts? Did you know the same is true of sodemy in some
jurisdictions? Parking is certain areas at certain times?

Yes, very easy indeed. Too easy. That is why we have too many laws.
PLease, stop loving me-you're only hurting yourself since I am not gay.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
You are nothing but a criminal, worthy of being imprisoned for your
transgressions. Legislation is extremely difficult and something that

an

Post by Edward Dolan
idiot like you could never do. Your advocacy for breaking the law

makes you

Post by Edward Dolan
little better than a terrorist, the ultimate law breaker. May you rot

in

Post by Edward Dolan
hell for all eternity. You are an evil person and not worthy to be

living in

Post by Edward Dolan
a civilized society. You belong in a place like Antarctica all by

your

Post by Edward Dolan
lonesome where you could express your savagery without limits. In

short,

Post by Edward Dolan
you are beneath contempt.

Oh edward you are so cute when you get crazy. Laws are easily passsed
as displayed by the typs oflaws passed. For instance did you know it
is unlawful to ride a bike without a helmet? Did you know the same is
true of seatbelts? Did you know the same is true of sodemy in some
jurisdictions? Parking is certain areas at certain times?
Yes, very easy indeed. Too easy. That is why we have too many laws.
PLease, stop loving me-you're only hurting yourself since I am not gay.

You do not know any more about laws than you do about your own ass, you
fucking idiot. Why don't you stifle yourself if you want to accomplish
something worthwhile. Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world, but BC
Canadians like you take the cake. Were you born this stupid or did you have
to work at it. Either way, you are a masterpiece of stupidity.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
You do not know any more about laws than you do about your own ass, you
fucking idiot. Why don't you stifle yourself if you want to

accomplish

Post by Edward Dolan
something worthwhile. Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world, but BC
Canadians like you take the cake. Were you born this stupid or did you have
to work at it. Either way, you are a masterpiece of stupidity.

As I said, too too too easy to pass laws. All you have to do is come
up with a popular cause "(for example smoking) and you can pass a law
that prohibits private tax payers owning private business, on private
land, from dictating thier own smoking policy for a business.
More laws=erosion of freedoms. YOu know that but don't care Eddy boy.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
You do not know any more about laws than you do about your own ass,

you

Post by Edward Dolan
fucking idiot. Why don't you stifle yourself if you want to

accomplish

Post by Edward Dolan
something worthwhile. Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world,

but BC

Post by Edward Dolan
Canadians like you take the cake. Were you born this stupid or did

you have

Post by Edward Dolan
to work at it. Either way, you are a masterpiece of stupidity.

As I said, too too too easy to pass laws. All you have to do is come
up with a popular cause "(for example smoking) and you can pass a law
that prohibits private tax payers owning private business, on private
land, from dictating thier own smoking policy for a business.
More laws=erosion of freedoms. YOu know that but don't care Eddy boy.

Zillions of laws are needed in every civilized society for the safety and
protection of all. We are NOT free to pick and choose which laws we are
going to observe. That is the price, a very small price, that we pay for the
very great advantages of living in a civilized society. The absence of law
does not lead to freedom, it leads to slavery. Strange that anyone living in
a democracy does not know this.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
Zillions of laws are needed in every civilized society for the safety and
protection of all. We are NOT free to pick and choose which laws we are
going to observe. That is the price, a very small price, that we pay for the
very great advantages of living in a civilized society. The absence of law
does not lead to freedom, it leads to slavery. Strange that anyone living in
a democracy does not know this.

My point exactly- ZILLIONS of laws. The more laws you have (especially
petty ones such as helmet laws) the more you erode the credibility of
law makers, the police, and the law itself.
Because of this I CHOOSE to break all kinds of laws now virtually
everyday. This because of you people like Edward Dolan.
Yet I am still civilized. Yet you think someone who wants the choice
of a helmet, is uncivilized. That is why you have no cerdibilty (plus
the fact you are an idiot in the true sense of the term).

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Eric®

Post by Edward Dolan
Zillions of laws are needed in every civilized society for the safety

and

Post by Edward Dolan
protection of all. We are NOT free to pick and choose which laws we

are

Post by Edward Dolan
going to observe. That is the price, a very small price, that we pay

for the

Post by Edward Dolan
very great advantages of living in a civilized society. The absence

of law

Post by Edward Dolan
does not lead to freedom, it leads to slavery. Strange that anyone

living in

Post by Edward Dolan
a democracy does not know this.

My point exactly- ZILLIONS of laws. The more laws you have (especially
petty ones such as helmet laws) the more you erode the credibility of
law makers, the police, and the law itself.

Post by Edward Dolan
Zillions of laws are needed in every civilized society for the safety

and

Post by Edward Dolan
protection of all.

Because of this I CHOOSE to break all kinds of laws now virtually
everyday.

We are NOT free to pick and choose which laws we

Post by Eric®
are

Post by Edward Dolan
going to observe.

This because of you people like Edward Dolan.

Post by Eric®
Yet I am still civilized. Yet you think someone who wants the choice
of a helmet, is uncivilized. That is why you have no cerdibilty (plus
the fact you are an idiot in the true sense of the term).

The minute others decide for themselves what laws they are going to observe
and what laws they are not going to observe, you have detracted from
democracy and civilization. Your only proper recourse is to work to change
those laws you do not like - and you do that by observing all legal
processes. You do not do it by breaking the law nor advocating that others
do so.

You are not worthy live in a democracy. You are a barbarian and deserve to
live under a tyrant. The tyrant will see to it that you observe all the laws
that he thinks are important or it would be off with your head. That is your
way; I prefer my way - which is to be law abiding.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
The minute others decide for themselves what laws they are going to observe
and what laws they are not going to observe, you have detracted from
democracy and civilization. Your only proper recourse is to work to change
those laws you do not like - and you do that by observing all legal
processes. You do not do it by breaking the law nor advocating that others
do so.

You clearly don't belive you're own fecal matter. THe thing stopping
me from muder is NOT the law. It is my conscience. THe point being is
that I DO choose what laws to obey and so do most people.

Cycling helmetless, still proving you wrong over and over.

Post by Edward Dolan
You are not worthy live in a democracy. You are a barbarian and deserve to
live under a tyrant. The tyrant will see to it that you observe all the laws
that he thinks are important or it would be off with your head. That is your
way; I prefer my way - which is to be law abiding.

Liar.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
The minute others decide for themselves what laws they are going to

observe

Post by Edward Dolan
and what laws they are not going to observe, you have detracted from
democracy and civilization. Your only proper recourse is to work to

change

Post by Edward Dolan
those laws you do not like - and you do that by observing all legal
processes. You do not do it by breaking the law nor advocating that

others

Post by Edward Dolan
do so.

You clearly don't belive you're own fecal matter. THe thing stopping
me from muder is NOT the law. It is my conscience. THe point being is
that I DO choose what laws to obey and so do most people.

Wrong again oh brainless one. You do not murder because of the law. The
sooner you realize that you are not as free as you imagine yourself to be,
the better. The punishment for murder ought to be death in almost all cases.
That, besides the law, is also a great deterrent to certain types of
mentalities. Why don't you stop thinking like a criminal. Pretty soon decent
folks are going to avoid you.

Post by Edward Dolan
Cycling helmetless, still proving you wrong over and over.

Post by Edward Dolan
You are not worthy live in a democracy. You are a barbarian and

deserve to

Post by Edward Dolan
live under a tyrant. The tyrant will see to it that you observe all

the laws

Post by Edward Dolan
that he thinks are important or it would be off with your head. That

is your

Post by Edward Dolan
way; I prefer my way - which is to be law abiding.

Liar.

Ever the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
Wrong again oh brainless one. You do not murder because of the law.

No, I choose not to murder because my consciene prohibits it. You
could make it legal tomorrow and I still would not kill. Same with
theft, rape, etc.

The

Post by Edward Dolan
sooner you realize that you are not as free as you imagine yourself to be,
the better. The punishment for murder ought to be death in almost all cases.
That, besides the law, is also a great deterrent to certain types of
mentalities. Why don't you stop thinking like a criminal. Pretty soon decent
folks are going to avoid you.
Ever the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Funny, how both liberal and conservatives alike resport calling both,
when they are upset with me.

[Jack Rabbit Mister]

I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as a
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you think
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.

Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of foreign
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.

Jack

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
You are nothing but a criminal, worthy of being imprisoned for your
transgressions. Legislation is extremely difficult and something that

an

Post by Edward Dolan
idiot like you could never do. Your advocacy for breaking the law

makes you

Post by Edward Dolan
little better than a terrorist, the ultimate law breaker. May you rot

in

Post by Edward Dolan
hell for all eternity. You are an evil person and not worthy to be

living in

Post by Edward Dolan
a civilized society. You belong in a place like Antarctica all by

your

Post by Edward Dolan
lonesome where you could express your savagery without limits. In

short,

Post by Edward Dolan
you are beneath contempt.

Oh edward you are so cute when you get crazy. Laws are easily passsed
as displayed by the typs oflaws passed. For instance did you know it
is unlawful to ride a bike without a helmet? Did you know the same is
true of seatbelts? Did you know the same is true of sodemy in some
jurisdictions? Parking is certain areas at certain times?
Yes, very easy indeed. Too easy. That is why we have too many laws.
PLease, stop loving me-you're only hurting yourself since I am not gay.

You do not know any more about laws than you do about your own ass, you
fucking idiot. Why don't you stifle yourself if you want to accomplish
something worthwhile. Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world, but BC
Canadians like you take the cake. Were you born this stupid or did you
have to work at it. Either way, you are a masterpiece of stupidity.
--
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Mark Leuck]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of foreign
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.
Jack

Only after being beaten on the battlefield which didn't happen to the
Americans

[Jack Rabbit Mister]

Did I miss something, did the Americans win?

Jack

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of

foreign

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.
Jack

Only after being beaten on the battlefield which didn't happen to the
Americans

[Edward Dolan]

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did I miss something, did the Americans win?
Jack

Yup, you sure did. We Americans never lost a battle in the entire history of
the Vietnam War. In fact, we slaughtered them consistently. However, much
like the French, we lost out in the end because support for the war failed
on the home front. That damn Walter Cronkite had more to do with our defeat
than did our ever victorious military. It just goes to prove that you can
will all the battles and still lose the war. The US military has never been
defeated, not even excepting Custer's Last Stand. That was just a slight set
back.

The very best part of the US today is our military. They are elite in more
ways than one.
--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of

foreign

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.
Jack

Only after being beaten on the battlefield which didn't happen to the
Americans

[DiscoDuck]

.... It just goes to prove that you can
will all the battles and still lose the war. The US military has never been
defeated, not even excepting Custer's Last Stand. That was just a slight set
back.

You can "will" all the battles? Edward me boy, look at all your
gramatical errors. What a dufus.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

.... It just goes to prove that you can
will [win] all the battles and still lose the war. The US military has

never been

defeated, not even excepting Custer's Last Stand. That was just a

slight set

back.

You can "will" all the battles? Edward me boy, look at all your
gramatical errors. What a dufus.

All my spelling errors are due to my spell checker. The fact is I can't type
worth a darn, so my spell checker is having to work overtime correcting all
my typos. If I don't look closely at what my spell checker is doing I can
end up with some very strange sentences all right.

[Mark Leuck]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did I miss something, did the Americans win?
Jack

A technical draw when we pulled out but since N Vietnam invaded after we
left and along with the political problems because of it it's considered a
loss

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of

foreign

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.
Jack

Only after being beaten on the battlefield which didn't happen to the
Americans

Mark is not much for punctuation, but he is certainly right about how the
French were defeated in Vietnam. I think it was called the Battle of Dien
Ben Phu. But the French were not good colonists in any event. Wherever they
go, they act like the pigs that they are. The English did the colonial thing
a thousand times better than the French.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as a
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you think
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.

Mister Mister,

I hate to say this to you but chances are the helmet did not protect
you against any serious injury. You have far greater chance of being
injured in a motor vehicle. or in the home.

But even if it did (and the chances are literally millions and millions
against it) why would that be reason to ahve a law?

I smacked the back of my head on my kitchen cubard today, and my wife
thought I should get stitches. IS that eno;ugh reason for a law in the
home?

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of foreign
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out of
Vietnam.

[Jack Rabbit Mister]

You are free to say what you like but the stones imbedded in the foam of my
helmet kind of convinced me that the helmet protected me from injury. I will
always wear a helmet, not because it is the law but because for me I feel it
serves a purpose. But if you don't want to wear one that should be your
prerogative and shouldn't be required by law. You can have a fall on a bike
simply by not having a cleat disengage and injury and part of your body.
Maybe pedals with cleats should be unlawful. Or perhaps cyclists need to
wear full body armour!

Jack

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as

a

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you

think

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.

Mister Mister,
I hate to say this to you but chances are the helmet did not protect
you against any serious injury. You have far greater chance of being
injured in a motor vehicle. or in the home.
But even if it did (and the chances are literally millions and millions
against it) why would that be reason to ahve a law?
I smacked the back of my head on my kitchen cubard today, and my wife
thought I should get stitches. IS that eno;ugh reason for a law in the
home?

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians

re-elect

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of

foreign

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get out

of

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
Vietnam.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
You are free to say what you like but the stones imbedded in the foam of my
helmet kind of convinced me that the helmet protected me from injury. I will
always wear a helmet, not because it is the law but because for me I feel it
serves a purpose. But if you don't want to wear one that should be your
prerogative and shouldn't be required by law. You can have a fall on a bike
simply by not having a cleat disengage and injury and part of your body.
Maybe pedals with cleats should be unlawful. Or perhaps cyclists need to
wear full body armour!

I tend to the opinion that h*lm*ts do have a useful function in
preventing or reducing the severity of superficial [1] injuries, and
therefore I generally wear one while riding a bicycle. I have no great
expectation that a bicycle h*lm*t will prevent death or brain damage in
those accidents that would cause such trauma to a h*lm*tless cyclist.

[1] Those not causing death or permanent brain damage.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Tom Sherman
I tend to the opinion that h*lm*ts do have a useful function in
preventing or reducing the severity of superficial [1] injuries, and
therefore I generally wear one while riding a bicycle. I have no great
expectation that a bicycle h*lm*t will prevent death or brain damage in
those accidents that would cause such trauma to a h*lm*tless cyclist.
[1] Those not causing death or permanent brain damage.
--
Tom Sherman - Earth

I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

[Mark Leuck]

Post by DiscoDuck
I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

That one's easy, its the same 2 reasons for most speed limit laws....revenue
and because "they care"

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by DiscoDuck
I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

That one's easy, its the same 2 reasons for most speed limit laws....revenue
and because "they care"

You may not exceed 2.998x10^8 m/sec!

A. Einstein

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by DiscoDuck
I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

That one's easy, its the same 2 reasons for most speed limit

laws....revenue

Post by Mark Leuck
and because "they care"

So then you obviously feel helmets in cars should be mandated. Or in
the home (last a friends father passed on after an accident in the home
caused a head injury).
Or ban fatty foods, or alcohol.

[Mark Leuck]

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by DiscoDuck
I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

That one's easy, its the same 2 reasons for most speed limit

laws....revenue

Post by Mark Leuck
and because "they care"

So then you obviously feel helmets in cars should be mandated. Or in
the home (last a friends father passed on after an accident in the home
caused a head injury).
Or ban fatty foods, or alcohol.

Not at all, I agree with you in that they should not be mandated by law just
like seat belts

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by Mark Leuck

Post by DiscoDuck
I fail to see why something that may have some benefit, should be
mandated by law.

That one's easy, its the same 2 reasons for most speed limit

laws....revenue

Post by Mark Leuck
and because "they care"

So then you obviously feel helmets in cars should be mandated. Or in
the home (last a friends father passed on after an accident in the home
caused a head injury).
Or ban fatty foods, or alcohol.

Not at all, I agree with you in that they should not be mandated by law just
like seat belts

Thanks for admitting that. Many people who advocate helmets also
advocate a law to wear them. YOU obviously are far more reasonable and
sensible than other Helmet proponants.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
You are free to say what you like but the stones imbedded in the foam of
my helmet kind of convinced me that the helmet protected me from injury.
I will always wear a helmet, not because it is the law but because for me
I feel it serves a purpose. But if you don't want to wear one that should
be your prerogative and shouldn't be required by law. You can have a fall
on a bike simply by not having a cleat disengage and injury and part of
your body. Maybe pedals with cleats should be unlawful. Or perhaps
cyclists need to wear full body armour!

I tend to the opinion that h*lm*ts do have a useful function in preventing
or reducing the severity of superficial [1] injuries, and therefore I
generally wear one while riding a bicycle. I have no great expectation
that a bicycle h*lm*t will prevent death or brain damage in those
accidents that would cause such trauma to a h*lm*tless cyclist.
[1] Those not causing death or permanent brain damage.

All of the above is a good enough reason to wear a helmet and there is
nothing wrong with mandating it either. All this freedom of choice business
is a lot of hooey. Society has to protect individuals from their own
stupidity to the extent that it can. Very many laws are exactly for that
purpose and no other.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
All of the above is a good enough reason to wear a helmet and there is
nothing wrong with mandating it either. All this freedom of choice business
is a lot of hooey. Society has to protect individuals from their own
stupidity to the extent that it can. Very many laws are exactly for that
purpose and no other.

Control freak is waht all proponants of this law are. They do not care
nor are they realistic about the risks involved. It's about imposing
your own will on another.
YOU are a rapist of freedom of choice.

[Edward Dolan]

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as a
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you think
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians re-elect
the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more understanding of
foreign policy than Americans. At least they had the common sense to get
out of Vietnam.
Jack

Jack, it is for the above reasons (besides DiscoDuck of course) that I think
Canadians are not too bright. Canada acts like a baby sister to your old
Uncle Sam, the US. You are only able to get away from your responsibilities
in the world, like the Europeans, BECAUSE of the US. And please, do not get
me started on the g.d. French (ever a nation of whores). It is very bad for
my blood pressure which is already sky high.

[Jack Rabbit Mister]

If it wasn't for the French, America as a nation wouldn't even exist. But
like the typical ignorant American you probably aren't familiar with your
country's history. Is it America's responsibility to invade another country
based on LIES? Face the fact that Canada is what America aspires to be but
can't, due to your history of bigotry, hate and intolerance.

Jack

Post by Edward Dolan
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as a
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you think
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians
re-elect the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more
understanding of foreign policy than Americans. At least they had the
common sense to get out of Vietnam.
Jack

Jack, it is for the above reasons (besides DiscoDuck of course) that I
think Canadians are not too bright. Canada acts like a baby sister to your
old Uncle Sam, the US. You are only able to get away from your
responsibilities in the world, like the Europeans, BECAUSE of the US. And
please, do not get me started on the g.d. French (ever a nation of
whores). It is very bad for my blood pressure which is already sky high.
--
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
If it wasn't for the French, America as a nation wouldn't even exist. But
like the typical ignorant American you probably aren't familiar with your
country's history. Is it America's responsibility to invade another
country based on LIES? Face the fact that Canada is what America aspires
to be but can't, due to your history of bigotry, hate and intolerance.

Jack, do I seem like a person who is unfamiliar with my own country's
history? If so, then your perspicacity is only exceeded by your stupidity.

The French have always been the most prickly of allies, to say the least.
They never do anything for anyone else. They only do what is in their own
national interest.

However, the US is a true crusader nation. We are bringing freedom and
democracy to the entire world There has ever been only one beacon for all
mankind and that is the US. Try to get your head screwed on straight, why
don't you.

The least you might do is learn how to post. Look around you and see how
others are posting and then go and do likewise. I am fed up with top
posters.
--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister

Post by Edward Dolan
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Post by Jack Rabbit Mister
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Duck's position on helmet laws (as a
helmet protected me from certain injury) but you're an Ass if you think
Canadians are the dumbest jerks in the world.
Did Canadians join in the illegal invasion of Iraq? Did Canadians
re-elect the likes of George Bush? Even the French have more
understanding of foreign policy than Americans. At least they had the
common sense to get out of Vietnam.
Jack

Jack, it is for the above reasons (besides DiscoDuck of course) that I
think Canadians are not too bright. Canada acts like a baby sister to
your old Uncle Sam, the US. You are only able to get away from your
responsibilities in the world, like the Europeans, BECAUSE of the US. And
please, do not get me started on the g.d. French (ever a nation of
whores). It is very bad for my blood pressure which is already sky high.
--
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
However, the US is a true crusader nation. We are bringing freedom and
democracy to the entire world There has ever been only one beacon for all
mankind and that is the US.

Right, and removing choices for it's own citizens (i.e. helmet law,
smoking policy for business owners) is "spreading freedom."
LOL.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by DiscoDuck
...
Right, and removing choices for it's own citizens (i.e. helmet law,
smoking policy for business owners) is "spreading freedom."...

Feel free to smoke as much as you want, as long as you do not pollute
the commons of the atmosphere with your smoke.

One reason I prefer cycling events is that cyclists who smoke are
thankfully a great rarity.

P.S. Having a business that employees others is a privilege, not a right.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by DiscoDuck
...
Right, and removing choices for it's own citizens (i.e. helmet law,
smoking policy for business owners) is "spreading freedom."...

Feel free to smoke as much as you want, as long as you do not pollute
the commons of the atmosphere with your smoke.
One reason I prefer cycling events is that cyclists who smoke are
thankfully a great rarity.
P.S. Having a business that employees others is a privilege, not a right.

Have to disagree with you here too, Tom. You have a right to open a
business no matter who you are so long as you can meet market demands
and you can afford to (which includes creditors). Also, if someone
wants to work for you then you have right to hire them so long as they
wish to be hired. Therefore if an employee didn't like the smoke,
then they shouldn't have applied in the first place and found work
where smoking was prohibited. The fact that there were fewer places
that prohibited smoking showed there was no market for such. Non
smokers were tolerating smoking establishments.

If someone doesn't like their environment, they have right to find work
elsewhere (which includes smoking).
I speak from experience. I worked in a bar and decided to leave
because it was too smoky for me. IN no way manner or form was I
selfish enough to think the owner of a private business should have had
to accommodate me by banning smoking. He may have CHOSE to if the
market dictated it. But then the market was of such (and still is)
that people tolerated smoking establishments. The only reason it is
illegal now is people confuse preference with choice. Quite simply
they lack tolerance. They do not understand the concept of tolerance
and freedom of choice unless it coincides with their preference.
I for one do not confuse the two. I am a non-smoker who would rather
have smoking establishment available, than what we have now which is NO
CHOICE.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by DiscoDuck
...
Right, and removing choices for it's own citizens (i.e. helmet law,
smoking policy for business owners) is "spreading freedom."...

Feel free to smoke as much as you want, as long as you do not pollute
the commons of the atmosphere with your smoke.
One reason I prefer cycling events is that cyclists who smoke are
thankfully a great rarity.
P.S. Having a business that employees others is a privilege, not a

right.
Have to disagree with you here too, Tom. You have a right to open a
business no matter who you are so long as you can meet market demands
and you can afford to (which includes creditors). Also, if someone
wants to work for you then you have right to hire them so long as they
wish to be hired. Therefore if an employee didn't like the smoke,
then they shouldn't have applied in the first place and found work
where smoking was prohibited. The fact that there were fewer places
that prohibited smoking showed there was no market for such. Non
smokers were tolerating smoking establishments.
If someone doesn't like their environment, they have right to find work
elsewhere (which includes smoking).
I speak from experience. I worked in a bar and decided to leave
because it was too smoky for me. IN no way manner or form was I
selfish enough to think the owner of a private business should have had
to accommodate me by banning smoking. He may have CHOSE to if the
market dictated it. But then the market was of such (and still is)
that people tolerated smoking establishments. The only reason it is
illegal now is people confuse preference with choice. Quite simply
they lack tolerance. They do not understand the concept of tolerance
and freedom of choice unless it coincides with their preference.
I for one do not confuse the two. I am a non-smoker who would rather
have smoking establishment available, than what we have now which is NO
CHOICE.

The above arguments only apply in an extreme libertarian society, which
is the same as anarchy. When businesses want the protection of society
(e.g. making theft or destruction of the business's property illegal)
then they also have the moral imperative to accept the responsibility of
protecting the individual members of the society.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by DiscoDuck
...
Right, and removing choices for it's own citizens (i.e. helmet law,
smoking policy for business owners) is "spreading freedom."...

Feel free to smoke as much as you want, as long as you do not pollute
the commons of the atmosphere with your smoke.
One reason I prefer cycling events is that cyclists who smoke are
thankfully a great rarity.
P.S. Having a business that employees others is a privilege, not a

right.
Have to disagree with you here too, Tom. You have a right to open a
business no matter who you are so long as you can meet market demands
and you can afford to (which includes creditors). Also, if someone
wants to work for you then you have right to hire them so long as they
wish to be hired. Therefore if an employee didn't like the smoke,
then they shouldn't have applied in the first place and found work
where smoking was prohibited. The fact that there were fewer places
that prohibited smoking showed there was no market for such. Non
smokers were tolerating smoking establishments.
If someone doesn't like their environment, they have right to find work
elsewhere (which includes smoking).
I speak from experience. I worked in a bar and decided to leave
because it was too smoky for me. IN no way manner or form was I
selfish enough to think the owner of a private business should have had
to accommodate me by banning smoking. He may have CHOSE to if the
market dictated it. But then the market was of such (and still is)
that people tolerated smoking establishments. The only reason it is
illegal now is people confuse preference with choice. Quite simply
they lack tolerance. They do not understand the concept of tolerance
and freedom of choice unless it coincides with their preference.
I for one do not confuse the two. I am a non-smoker who would rather
have smoking establishment available, than what we have now which is NO
CHOICE.

The above arguments only apply in an extreme libertarian society, which is
the same as anarchy. When businesses want the protection of society (e.g.
making theft or destruction of the business's property illegal) then they
also have the moral imperative to accept the responsibility of protecting
the individual members of the society.

There is no one on this earth who hates libertarians more than I do.
However, DD has a point here. The fact is that people who hang out in bars
not only like to drink, they also like to smoke. He is right that those who
choose to work in such places know what they are getting into and those who
do not like smoky bars should never even think about working in them. After
all, a smoky bar is not the same thing as a smoky passenger airplane
compartment as to who is being subjected to what regarding the issue of
consent.

DD is right about this. Society should not become too overbearing in
limiting what people can freely choose to do provided they know the
consequences and are not harming anyone else who does not want to undertake
the risks involved. Children and juveniles always have to be protected of
course because they are not capable of consent based on reasoned judgement
and experience.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
There is no one on this earth who hates libertarians more than I do.
However, DD has a point here. The fact is that people who hang out in bars
not only like to drink, they also like to smoke. He is right that those who
choose to work in such places know what they are getting into and those who
do not like smoky bars should never even think about working in them. After
all, a smoky bar is not the same thing as a smoky passenger airplane
compartment as to who is being subjected to what regarding the issue of
consent.
DD is right about this. Society should not become too overbearing in
limiting what people can freely choose to do provided they know the
consequences and are not harming anyone else who does not want to undertake
the risks involved. Children and juveniles always have to be

protected of

Post by Edward Dolan
course because they are not capable of consent based on reasoned judgement
and experience.

My God, we agree 100% here. Damn it as Edward is a little weenie of a
human being and a rapist of freedoms.
So then Edward why do you not extend your reasoning to bicycle helmets,
where no one is harming ANYONE.

When the smoking ban first came into effect I purposely went to the
establishments that defied the ban, in order to support them (yet did
not smoke)

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
There is no one on this earth who hates libertarians more than I do.
However, DD has a point here. The fact is that people who hang out in

bars

Post by Edward Dolan
not only like to drink, they also like to smoke. He is right that

those who

Post by Edward Dolan
choose to work in such places know what they are getting into and

those who

Post by Edward Dolan
do not like smoky bars should never even think about working in them.

After

Post by Edward Dolan
all, a smoky bar is not the same thing as a smoky passenger airplane
compartment as to who is being subjected to what regarding the issue

of

Post by Edward Dolan
consent.
DD is right about this. Society should not become too overbearing in
limiting what people can freely choose to do provided they know the
consequences and are not harming anyone else who does not want to

undertake

Post by Edward Dolan
the risks involved. Children and juveniles always have to be

protected of

Post by Edward Dolan
course because they are not capable of consent based on reasoned

judgement

Post by Edward Dolan
and experience.

My God, we agree 100% here. Damn it as Edward is a little weenie of a
human being and a rapist of freedoms.
So then Edward why do you not extend your reasoning to bicycle helmets,
where no one is harming ANYONE.

The damage caused by exposure to smoke is very long term and not certain.
The damage caused by riding your bike without a helmet is very short term
and certain. Hence, the need for regulations to protect.

Post by Edward Dolan
When the smoking ban first came into effect I purposely went to the
establishments that defied the ban, in order to support them (yet did
not smoke)

You have the mind set of a criminal. You had best be careful as that is the
kind of attitude that sooner or later will land you in prison.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
The damage caused by exposure to smoke is very long term and not certain.
The damage caused by riding your bike without a helmet is very short term
and certain. Hence, the need for regulations to protect.

Correct-VERY CERTAIN. You will CERTAINLY NOT suffer a serious head
injury. THIS IS GUARENTEED.
Don't let this liar confuse you. There are literally MILLIONS and
MILLIONS of cycling incidents that go on without an ssue or head
injury. It is only the control freaks who want your choice removed
that will try and convince you otherwise.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
When the smoking ban first came into effect I purposely went to the
establishments that defied the ban, in order to support them (yet did
not smoke)

You have the mind set of a criminal. You had best be careful as that is the
kind of attitude that sooner or later will land you in prison.

There is no law against supporting such opinion. Not yet. The likes
of you however, will make it illegal to have an opposing opinion
because you are the rapist of freedoms.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
The damage caused by exposure to smoke is very long term and not

certain.

Post by Edward Dolan
The damage caused by riding your bike without a helmet is very short

term

Post by Edward Dolan
and certain. Hence, the need for regulations to protect.

Correct-VERY CERTAIN. You will CERTAINLY NOT suffer a serious head
injury. THIS IS GUARENTEED.
Don't let this liar confuse you. There are literally MILLIONS and
MILLIONS of cycling incidents that go on without an ssue or head
injury. It is only the control freaks who want your choice removed
that will try and convince you otherwise.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
When the smoking ban first came into effect I purposely went to the
establishments that defied the ban, in order to support them (yet

did

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
not smoke)

You have the mind set of a criminal. You had best be careful as that

is the

Post by Edward Dolan
kind of attitude that sooner or later will land you in prison.

There is no law against supporting such opinion. Not yet. The likes
of you however, will make it illegal to have an opposing opinion
because you are the rapist of freedoms.

Security, safety, protection, society vs. freedom of the individual to
choose. I know which side I am on.

DD does not just support a contrary opinion, but he advocates breaking the
law. Therefore he is little better than a criminal. He belongs in jail where
he can contemplate the error of his ways.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Edward Dolan
The damage caused by exposure to smoke is very long term and not

certain.

Post by Edward Dolan
The damage caused by riding your bike without a helmet is very short

term

Post by Edward Dolan
and certain. Hence, the need for regulations to protect.

Correct-VERY CERTAIN. You will CERTAINLY NOT suffer a serious head
injury. THIS IS GUARENTEED.
Don't let this liar confuse you. There are literally MILLIONS and
MILLIONS of cycling incidents that go on without an ssue or head
injury. It is only the control freaks who want your choice removed
that will try and convince you otherwise.

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
When the smoking ban first came into effect I purposely went to the
establishments that defied the ban, in order to support them (yet

did

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
not smoke)

You have the mind set of a criminal. You had best be careful as that

is the

Post by Edward Dolan
kind of attitude that sooner or later will land you in prison.

There is no law against supporting such opinion. Not yet. The likes
of you however, will make it illegal to have an opposing opinion
because you are the rapist of freedoms.

Security, safety, protection, society vs. freedom of the individual to
choose. I know which side I am on.
DD does not just support a contrary opinion, but he advocates

breaking the

Post by Edward Dolan
law. Therefore he is little better than a criminal. He belongs in jail where
he can contemplate the error of his ways.

YEs, I do advocate breaking of many many laws. IF some laws weren't
broken then there wouldn't be the change needed.
For instance when racially motivated laws existed people stood up and
broke those laws. Thank goodness.
Yes break laws that you feel are morally wrong.
By the way Eddy boy I told you you can't resist, You love me.

[Edward Dolan]

"DiscoDuck" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]

Post by DiscoDuck
YEs, I do advocate breaking of many many laws. IF some laws weren't
broken then there wouldn't be the change needed.
For instance when racially motivated laws existed people stood up and
broke those laws. Thank goodness.
Yes break laws that you feel are morally wrong.

You stand condemned out of your own mouth. It is not acceptable to break
laws in a democracy.

Post by DiscoDuck
By the way Eddy boy I told you you can't resist, You love me.

When you post substance, I will answer you. When you post nonsense, I won't
bother with you.

By the way, what is with bc.cycling? It appears you are the only one who
posts there. Is the group dead? Did you kill it?

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
[...]

Post by DiscoDuck
YEs, I do advocate breaking of many many laws. IF some laws

weren't

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
broken then there wouldn't be the change needed.
For instance when racially motivated laws existed people stood up and
broke those laws. Thank goodness.
Yes break laws that you feel are morally wrong.

You stand condemned out of your own mouth. It is not acceptable to break
laws in a democracy.

Yes it is. Some laws were MEANT to be broken. The cycling helmet law
is the prefect example and I proudly break almost every single day
(several times daily).

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by DiscoDuck
By the way Eddy boy I told you you can't resist, You love me.

When you post substance, I will answer you. When you post nonsense, I won't
bother with you.

Considering you kept saying "Bye Bye" to me, this shows how much of a
liar you are. And I thank you for the compliment, admiting my posts
are of substance. But I know that.

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, what is with bc.cycling? It appears you are the only one who
posts there. Is the group dead? Did you kill it?

No. other do post but obviously you're so self absorbed you don't read
them.

[Edward Dolan]

[...]

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by Edward Dolan
By the way, what is with bc.cycling? It appears you are the only one

who

Post by Edward Dolan
posts there. Is the group dead? Did you kill it?

No. other do post but obviously you're so self absorbed you don't read
them.

I have subscribed to bc.cycling and I note hardly any other posts there
except for a few of yours. I do not believe I have ever encountered a deader
group. It is surprising to me that nyc.bicycles is not more active. That
group appears to be dead too. Very strange. Apparently newsgoups can die for
lack of activity. It is a wonder that Google continues to carry them. It may
be that I have not downloaded enough threads, but still all current posts
should appear automatically regardless, should they not? I use the Outlook
Express newsreader. I will check the Google web page for bc and nyc shortly
and see what is amiss if anything.

I do note that aus.bicycle, uk.rec.cycling and of course ARBR are all very
active.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Edward Dolan
I have subscribed to bc.cycling and I note hardly any other posts there
except for a few of yours. I do not believe I have ever encountered a deader
group. It is surprising to me that nyc.bicycles is not more active. That
group appears to be dead too. Very strange. Apparently newsgoups can die for
lack of activity. It is a wonder that Google continues to carry them. It may
be that I have not downloaded enough threads, but still all current posts
should appear automatically regardless, should they not? I use the Outlook
Express newsreader. I will check the Google web page for bc and nyc shortly
and see what is amiss if anything.
I do note that aus.bicycle, uk.rec.cycling and of course ARBR are all very
active.
--
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

See! Told you that you cannot resist me.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Tom Sherman
The above arguments only apply in an extreme libertarian society, which
is the same as anarchy. When businesses want the protection of

society

Post by Tom Sherman
(e.g. making theft or destruction of the business's property illegal)
then they also have the moral imperative to accept the responsibility of
protecting the individual members of the society.

So then why not protect passengers in cars? After even with seatbelts
and airbags we STILL have head injuries. Many of them.

Society has the moral imperative to protect freedom of choice but
failing miserably. Giving private tax payers the choice is not lacking
in protestation. As a matter of fact it reinforces it by upholding the
concept freedom of choice. Tolerating choices that differ from yours
and creating a marketplace where none may have existed before.
It also hurts the economy. For years I have planned on opening a small
chain of business's in BC but now that I have the funds I am seeking
elsewhere to do this since I fear what other choices will be legislate
away.

DD (a non smoker)

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Edward Dolan

Post by Tom Sherman
The above arguments only apply in an extreme libertarian society,

which

Post by Tom Sherman
is the same as anarchy. When businesses want the protection of

society

Post by Tom Sherman
(e.g. making theft or destruction of the business's property illegal)
then they also have the moral imperative to accept the responsibility

of

Post by Tom Sherman
protecting the individual members of the society.

So then why not protect passengers in cars? After even with seatbelts
and airbags we STILL have head injuries. Many of them.
Society has the moral imperative to protect freedom of choice but
failing miserably. Giving private tax payers the choice is not lacking
in protestation. As a matter of fact it reinforces it by upholding the
concept freedom of choice. Tolerating choices that differ from yours
and creating a marketplace where none may have existed before.
It also hurts the economy. For years I have planned on opening a small
chain of business's in BC but now that I have the funds I am seeking
elsewhere to do this since I fear what other choices will be legislate
away.
DD (a non smoker)

Yup, DD is a libertarian. He wants to do his own thing and let the rest of
society go hang. But the rest of society is bigger than any individuals in
it and the sooner he learns that and accepts it, the better off he will be.

ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE CRAZY! Thus spake Zarathustra.