Originally Posted by
base2
I did need to infer your position because after all your words, you failed to explicitly state your position or the reasons you make the decisions you do.
or ... you simply failed to grasp.
My position is that wearing a helmet is a choice and should remain so. Really simple. Not quite sure how anyone could have missed that.
Originally Posted by
base2
Perhaps you do not understand statistical modeling? .... "Provide more data" is outside the possible outcomes afforded by the conditions and reveals your understanding of statistical modeling.
You said your post wasn't about data. Statistics are data. Yet if I ask for data, your "model" built on "data' has no data? You cannot “statistically model” something without base data. You make predictions based on the model, and you base your model on the data. No data, no model.
Originally Posted by
base2
Also, you don't like the way I drew the groups.
Yeah ... um, quote please precisely where i said that or anything like that.
I have no problem with your groups, except that without anything but the titles, that's all they are. headings over empty columns. "'List of possible outcomes in a bike wreck--you get hurt, or you don't, you get killed or you don't." Now what?
Listing a bunch of potential outcomes with no data associated is meaningless. Basically, it is "you get hurt or you don't, you get killed or you don't." No Information is provided. The groups themselves are fine, but if all they are is a partial list of potential outcomes ... nothing is taught, nothing is learned.
Your categories seem fine to me ... what do they Actuallly represent? Just themselves?
You basic premise, that people who choose not to wear helmets, cannot tell the difference between a head injury and an unspecified fatal injury, is also completely unsupported.
Originally Posted by
base2
To facilitate useful discussion, provide a better way of defining the groups involved. Please.
What exactly do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss the fact that you began your thread with a false premise?
Consider the first line of your initial post:
Originally Posted by
base2
In this forum, over the years there has been many a discussion among the "Helmets do nuthin'" crowd & the "Helmets protect yer noggin'" crowd.
You start with a lie. No one says helmets do nothing.
How can you have a “discussion” when the opening sentence is not only dishonest, but attempts to demean the people with whom you do not agree?
So … Exactly what did you hope to “discuss”?