Just a quick test post for the sole purpose of spreading this email
address.
Only some random garbage below. Nothing for you to see here, please move
along :)
---
some sort of conspiracy(?) where a large number of individual
> >>In one case local to me (a double fatality, hit by a drunk driver), I
>
Bill Baka <bbaka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> drive at 45 but not 70.
was used in a fatality only when it wasn't. They all make individual
re****ters and newspapers would have a policy of mentioning if a helmet
> Bill Z. wrote:
> Illinois about ten years ago. Large dog so I stopped to see and its
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> gut were splatted out on the road. Then some asshole honks his horn at
>
> > What makes you think this information was available when the re****ter
> My point here is that people are no more resilient than large dogs
> > frkrygow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >
But that is irrelevant to what Krygowski was saying - he was claiming
> >>phoned the police department and asked, and was told the cyclists were
> >>helmets. But they have mentioned the lack of helmets in other
injuries
> The helmet issue does have one flaw. I hat a dog in a rainstorm in
> > wrote the article? As usual, you don't know.
decisions, so "proof by example" simply has to be suspect.
--
> when it comes to a serious impact and if you get hit hard enough to
> >>indeed wearing helmets. The newspaper did not mention the presence of
> spill your guts, literally, the helmet is irrelevant.
> rain. Serious downpour with very little visibility, maybe safe to
> >>and fatalities.
> me for stopping to check and goes around me at about 70 in the
---
Hormel Trappitus
bait@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spam trap mailbox in real time: http://zipurl.org/4g0c3
|
