Re: published helmet research - not troll - Page 11 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-21-2004, 10:46 PM

"Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

From last string of messages from Kunich:

> Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..

Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive. If you
want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:

<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod .itd.earthlink.net>.

Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
credible on this subject.

Next message:

> Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

More lies from Kunich.

> That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super dramatic
> drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention from
> you either.

He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
target.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

06-22-2004, 04:42 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

06-22-2004, 04:42 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

06-22-2004, 04:42 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

06-22-2004, 04:42 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

06-22-2004, 04:42 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> From last string of messages from Kunich:
> > Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. ..
>
> Kunich is reverting to form. When he sees the word "helmet," he
> goes competely irrational and starts to become abusive.

So by abusive you mean "you haven't changed in 12 years"? Please explain
what is abusive about that.

> If you want to see how abusive this jerk can be, check out the following
> URL, where he'll tell you in his own words:
>
>
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
9675%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>.

Come on Zauman, you can come up with something better than anger at a (what
turned out to be a fake) cop telling us that there's reasons that they don't
arrest people for assaulting bicyclists with their motor vehicles - a felony
and one in which if done to a cop, he may respond to with deadly force. But
somehow a cop doesn't see fit to worry about the same thing happening to a

> Kunich has posted repeated lies about me, with post after post of
> childish insults, all due to his helmet hangup. He is simply not
> credible on this subject.

Then please post the "lies" about you here Zauman. The problem is that you
are willing to use your imagination rather than facts to support your
arguments. Now perhaps an imagination is good for pointing you in a
direction to research but your problem is that you do not research. You
instead post stuff such as "Randy's site isn't biased and Avery's site is"
which is utter nonesense.

> Next message:
>
> > Just like a dozen years ago, you simply make things up as you go.
> > That doesn't surprise me at all. You also seem eager to avoid believing
> > strong evidence that is contrary to your agenda.

Case in point:

> More lies from Kunich.
>
> > That's because you never looked. The fact that there was a super
dramatic
> > drop in children's bicycle sales didn't seem to garner any attention
from
> > you either.
>
> He means they saturated the market with one type of bike and a new
> style wasn't out yet, so some random person Kunich talked to blamed
> the helmets, assuming Kunich didn't maket he whole thing up. Basically
> he talked to a shop owner who was mad that business had dropped off
> for some reason. Like many people upset about a loss of income, the
> guy probably needed something to blame, and picked the first convenient
> target.

So, Zauman, what "type" of bike did they saturate the market with? Since
they'd been selling the same sorts of bicycles to kids for 50 years without
"saturation" why is it that one year they passed a helmet law and that very
same Christmas there were essentially no bicycle sales for kids bikes? Why
did bike sales go from 30% children's bikes to almost zero? Because all of
these kids were looking for something new? And what was that again Zauman?

I'm open to hear your arguments if you are willing to support them with a
little research and a few facts.

06-22-2004, 04:43 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> > >
> > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
> > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)
> >
> > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
> > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
>
> Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.

06-22-2004, 04:43 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> > >
> > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
> > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)
> >
> > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
> > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
>
> Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.

06-22-2004, 04:43 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> > >
> > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
> > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)
> >
> > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
> > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
>
> Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.

06-22-2004, 04:43 PM

"Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> > news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> > >
> > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
> > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)
> >
> > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least
Frank
> > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
>
> Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Another example of your inability to read and comprehend Bill. You really
have to work on the English language.