Helmet worked for me

[bjlabuk]

If you've got the idea that that's what I'm after then you haven't understood the framing of the debate.
What I want is debate where the people taking part in it understand the framing of the debate.

Pete.

It sounds like you have control issues. If you want to 'control' the debate then I suggest that you start your own thread, dictate the 'framework' of that debate, and making it clear that you are the sole arbiter of posts. Lets see how you get on.....

[mattheus]

It sounds like you have control issues.

<cough> ...

- "If your (sic) a helmet sceptic don’t bother replying".

[Cowsham]

The time it took to write this post you'll never get back.

Yea, but neither will the people who have read it and responded! Lol.

Just trying ( maybe in vain ) to prevent another forum member leaving because of some daft row about whether or not to wear helmets. There's expert arguers on here about whether or not to wear helmets -- it's what they do best. ( like Tigger -- from Whiny the Pooh )

[853]

It sounds like you have control issues.

<cough> ...

- "If your (sic) a helmet sceptic don’t bother replying".

Here's what bjlabuk actually said

I thought I was just responding to the OP with my own tale. My apologies to all who found it boring or not up to their required standard to count as 'evidence'. I didn't know this thread was going to be used for academic or government research purposes. Yeesh!

To repeat what the OP said - "If your (sic) a helmet sceptic don’t bother replying".

[pjclinch]

If you've got the idea that that's what I'm after then you haven't understood the framing of the debate.
What I want is debate where the people taking part in it understand the framing of the debate.

It sounds like you have control issues. If you want to 'control' the debate then I suggest that you start your own thread, dictate the 'framework' of that debate, and making it clear that you are the sole arbiter of posts. Lets see how you get on.....

It sounds like you can't tell the difference between what I'd like to happen and what I feel some need to have control over.

But people putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that I don't have are pretty much par for the course when it comes to trying to discuss bike helmets

Pete.

[bjlabuk]

[It sounds like you can't tell the difference between what I'd like to happen and what I feel some need to have control over.
Pete.

Okay, tell me what the 'framing of the debate' is, and who framed it please, so I understand. I don't mean to be pedantic but I can't see any post where it is explicitly stated, so it would aid my understanding if you could set out the framing clearly. Thank you.

[pjclinch]

[It sounds like you can't tell the difference between what I'd like to happen and what I feel some need to have control over.
Pete.

Okay, tell me what the 'framing of the debate' is, and who framed it please, so I understand. I don't mean to be pedantic but I can't see any post where it is explicitly stated, so it would aid my understanding if you could set out the framing clearly. Thank you.

Understanding the framing of the debate is making the effort to understand what the people trying to make a point are actually getting at. That may involve reading what they say with care, and it may require questions to clarify things.

Where someone doesn't make that effort and seeks to ascribe opinions and thoughts to people that they don't have (e.g.calling me "anti helmet" despite the fact that I own and use a helmet, have no problem with people choosing to use helmets and use a picture of me wearing a helmet as my profile pic seen most widely in public) you can't have a reasonable debate. My wanting reasonable debate is nothing to do with control freakery, it's simply that unreasonable debate is pointless.

So when I ask something like "what do you mean by 'works' in this context?" I am trying to ascertain the framing, the context, of a statement so I can respond in, hopefully, good faith.

I've been using helmets for ~35 years over which time I've held a lot of opinions about them, many which I'd now dismiss as naïve. Over the 25 years I've been concerned with debate around their efficacy most of the loggerheads I've seen are caused by people who won't bother to try and understand the framing of the debate, often because they feel their Hot Take is "common sense" and thus anyone suggesting it's not as simple as they might think must be a bad actor. The reality is it really isn't a single simple black and white issue (though sometimes even saying that is enough to set people off), and having a helmet help in a crash isn't actually the slam dunk basis of me being Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know that a lot of people seem to think it is.

Pete.

[bjlabuk]

Understanding the framing of the debate is making the effort to understand what the people trying to make a point are actually getting at. That may involve reading what they say with care, and it may require questions to clarify things.
Pete.

Cough Cough

1. You haven't done exactly what you seem to expect of others! You didn't read my post with care nor take the time to consider the informality or otherwise of my post.
2. When did I refer to you as "anti-helmet".
3. I stand by my OP. It was my personal testimony based on my personal experience. It is ''anecdotal' yes, but in that sense that it would be admissable in a court of law.
4. If you only want to consider evidence which meets the 'scientfic' criteria, then you should perhaps just ignore posts such as mine.....

[bjlabuk]

Understanding the framing of the debate is making the effort to understand what the people trying to make a point are actually getting at. That may involve reading what they say with care, and it may require questions to clarify things.
Pete.

Cough Cough

1. You haven't done exactly what you seem to expect of others! You didn't read my post with care nor take the time to consider the informality or otherwise of my post.
2. When did I refer to you as "anti-helmet".
3. I stand by my OP. It was my personal testimony based on my personal experience. It is ''anecdotal' yes, but in that sense that it would be admissable in a court of law.
4. If you only want to consider evidence which meets the 'scientific' criteria, then you should perhaps just ignore posts such as mine.....

[bjlabuk]

There's expert arguers on here about whether or not to wear helmets -- it's what they do best. ( like Tigger -- from Whiny the Pooh )

LOL, I spend quite a bit of time on Discord. I know exactly what you are talking about! An expert debater is simply one who can defend their own position better than their opponent can defend theirs. It doesn't follow that the former is always correct in what they say.

Never mind. Happy days.....

[pjclinch]

Understanding the framing of the debate is making the effort to understand what the people trying to make a point are actually getting at. That may involve reading what they say with care, and it may require questions to clarify things.
Pete.

Cough Cough

1. You haven't done exactly what you seem to expect of others! You didn't read my post with care nor take the time to consider the informality or otherwise of my post.

Formality or otherwise is very difficult to convey in an internet forum, where it's a dungeon notorious for sense of humour failures even more so.

2. When did I refer to you as "anti-helmet".

As far as I can tell, never.
If you read what I wrote you'll see it's a general example of what tends to happen and has happened to me quite a bit over the years; I never say you're accusing me of it.

3. I stand by my OP. It was my personal testimony based on my personal experience. It is ''anecdotal' yes, but in that sense that it would be admissable in a court of law.
4. If you only want to consider evidence which meets the 'scientfic' criteria, then you should perhaps just ignore posts such as mine.....

And again we are back to the framing of the debate.
I haven't said I have any particular problem with your anecdote and I don't really see much doubt about from others either.
I do wonder if such anecdotes mean much in the wider frame of debate beyond giving an individual some personal contextual information for their own riding, and that's pretty much all most other folk have wondered too, but you seem to have missed that.

I'm not going on about whether I believe you, or if it would stand up in court, or if it would be accepted for peer reviewed publication, I don't see much evidence that others are, but you keep coming back to suggesting that people are trying to shut you down and control debate by putting your account in to doubt. The doubt lies in the broader significance and usefulness of such anecdotes, not whether they actually happened.

Pete.

[bjlabuk]

"The doubt lies in the broader significance and usefulness of such anecdotes, not whether they actually happened."

If that isn't an attempt to 'shut me down' I don't know what is lol! You are taking it upon yourself to judge the usefulness of posts like mine. Such criticism then deters others from posting similar personal experiences in the future.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I don't give a toss about the "broader significance". That is your pet interest, not mine.

I am not going to continue this discussion as it seems a total waste of time.

[pjclinch]

"The doubt lies in the broader significance and usefulness of such anecdotes, not whether they actually happened."

If that isn't an attempt to 'shut me down' I don't know what is lol! You are taking it upon yourself to judge the usefulness of posts like mine. Such criticism then deters others from posting similar personal experiences in the future.

I question it so you in return can answer and say what you think the value is.
If you're going to complain people are shutting you down on the basis of they don't agree with you and you're not willing to persuade them otherwise then you're not really participating in a discussion/debate.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I don't give a toss about the "broader significance". That is your pet interest, not mine.

If you're not interested in anything beyond what it means to you there isn't actually much point in posting it in a public forum

If all you want to do is shout something out and ignore anyone else's feelings about it then just publish it on a web page with no comeback rather than an interactive forum.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

There's expert arguers on here about whether or not to wear helmets -- it's what they do best. ( like Tigger -- from Whiny the Pooh )

LOL, I spend quite a bit of time on Discord. I know exactly what you are talking about! An expert debater is simply one who can defend their own position better than their opponent can defend theirs. It doesn't follow that the former is always correct in what they say.

Indeed, or the latter....

[bjlabuk]

Indeed, or the latter....

Indeed.....