The Shotgun Blog
« 'The most dangerous candidate' | Main | L’Affaire Cadman: A Theory of How it Went Down »
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Keep the turban, scrap the helmet law
Who owns Baljinder Badesha head?
Badesha is a Sikh whose religion demands that he wear a turban – and it is impossible to wear both a turban and a helmet at the same time. So Judge Blacklock decided that Badesha’s personal safety is more important than his religious freedom.
But Badesha doesn’t agree. He’d rather be true to his faith than be safe while on this motorcycle – and shouldn’t that be his choice? It’s his head after all.
I’m sure some people will say – “I don’t want to pay for his medical bills when he crashes his motorcycle and splits his head open.” Fair enough. Fight against socialized medicine then so that the cost of high risk behaviour isn’t externalized. Make people like our Sikh freedom fighter pay for their own reckless choices.
Or should the cost of public healthcare include the loss of our freedom? Helmet laws, smoking bans, trans-fat bans, drug laws...the list of petty health and safety related restrictions on our freedom grows daily.
I say wear your turban with pride, Badesha. Nobody asked the Sikhs who “fought for freedom” in WWII to wear a helmet. Protest in their name and the demand the freedom for which they were asked to die.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e550aabed88833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keep the turban, scrap the helmet law:
Comments
It really is a moot point and not even a matter of human rights. Whether the roads are privately owned or owned in common the "right" to use them is really a priviledge granted when you obtain a driver's licence. That gives the owner of the road the right to set the conditions of use.
What is the position of the little knot of cloth woven into the top knot on an orthodox sikh's head? Does it take the place of a turban? If so, a helmet will fit over it and the case loses its merit.
As to the medical bill's argument, many helmetless accidents result in death and that should reduce the medical bills and shift the burial costs on to the family.
Posted by: DML | 2008-03-06 10:45:57 PM
DML, the medical argument only has merit because of the government monopoly on health care. They pay, so they can use their coercive power over us to make us do things, like where a helmet. If we all payed our own health care it wouldn't matter.
Regarding who ownes the roads, a private owner would hardly care so long as they got their money.
Helmetless riders probably ride more carefully anyways.
Posted by: TM | 2008-03-06 11:21:42 PM
Have you ever gone past a Sikh temple? If so you'd have noticed that not all males wear turbans. It's a choice made by the hard core fundamentalists. If the turban is so important then the choice is easy. If you want to play the game play by the rules. What is more important, the turban or riding a motorcycle? The same could have been said about certain other high profile cases involving throwing out the rules to accomodate turbans. Choose your priority and deal with it.
Posted by: R. True | 2008-03-07 12:12:49 AM
Kudos to the judge for making the decision he did. Either everybody must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or it becomes optional for all.
BC and MB set troubling precedents by actually changing their provincial statutes to allow turban wearers to not wear a helmet. Let's hope that other provinces do not become followers.
If there is an appeal, we will see if the superior court(s)are beginning to "get it".
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2008-03-07 6:52:31 AM
If Sikh’s are exempt from wearing helmets then it opens a real can of worms. An orthodox Jew shouldn’t also have to wear a helmet because he wears a yarmulke or me as a Christian should also be exempt because I'm supposed to pray with my head uncovered and I may have to burst into prayer at any time. If a person's religion has requirements that are contradictory to a person’s activity, then perhaps the person either has to give up the activity or the religion.
Posted by: D Johnson | 2008-03-07 6:59:39 AM
Just as crying fire in a crowded theatre is illegal , but is a reasonable constraint on free speech or just as I have to wear a seat belt [ I don`t bother ] , in order to ' save lives ' , so too must our conveniently religious Sikh be forced to wear a helmet. Maybe some Sikh could come up with a protective device to fit over the entire rig. Then watch the squirming and howling.
Posted by: daveh | 2008-03-07 7:35:30 AM
Riding a motorcycle is not a human right. If he can't obey our helmet laws, he has other modes of transportation available to him.
This guy can choose what it more important to him -- riding a bike or wearing a turban. Life is all about choices.
Posted by: JMD | 2008-03-07 7:57:54 AM
Gee, the turban I get, but wouldn't his ceremonial dagger get caught in the wheel?
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-03-07 8:49:06 AM
"Riding a motorcycle is not a human right."
No, but from what I've read, manifesting his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance _is_.
And so is the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
So, if the so-called hate laws have to be changed because they conflict with the right to hold opinions and impart information through any media (you know who I'm talking about), then shouldn't so-called road safety laws also have to be changed where they conflict with the right to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance?
As for other religions and helmets, a yarmulke fits pretty nicely under most DOT approved helmets, and if as a Christian, If I were concerned with the command to pray with an uncovered head I'd also want to follow Jesus suggestion that they, "enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray". So I'd probably pull over and find, at the very least, a porta-potty where helmets aren't mandatory.
Tell me I'm not the only one who sees how this helps Ezra? Especially because I don't really care how that case goes.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 9:21:08 AM
By giving the state control over our health, they then have automatic control over our well-being. That means they have some control over our life style and habits. This leads to more and more control over everything.
The extrapolation to the environmental, climate change issues follow as well. If our environment is polluted our risk of illness increase the cost to our communist medicare system. If the climate becomes more violent and more injury is possible ... the same.
On thing leads to another. The seat belt, the helmet, smokers, the obese and so on. Why aren't skiers and scuba divers and race car drivers and other contact sports on the list? ... they will be,eventually. It takes time to turn an entire country from free to totally controlled by the collective. Especially while they are trying overcome the Sun's influence on our planet's climate. No star is too big for a properly written socialist policy to overcome.
I think you get the point. Everything that's going on in this country and the one south is about more and more control over the people's daily lives in the name of safety.
Socialist health care and the environment are the most powerful tools a government/society can have to succeed in destroying freedom and enterprise.
I am with the Sikh on this one. I don't think this is as much about his optional religious turban as it is about wanting to decide for himself.
I want freedom to chose every aspect of my life from helmets to smoking to seat belt, to risky activities to what I eat and how much I weigh. The government has no business in my life other than to tax and protect me from enemies of freedom. Novel thought isn't ... enemies of freedom. They could start with themselves on that one.
FYI I would opt to wear a seat belt, but I would take my helmet off on really hot days to truly enjoy the bike ride. I would opt for good diet and exercise because I personally value my health, not to save the tax payer money ... as if any government bothers with that idea.
Posted by: John West | 2008-03-07 9:32:34 AM
Good post, John West.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 9:40:40 AM
Does anyone else see a decent opportunity to design a turban-friendly full face helmet for men like Mr. Badesha? That's a pretty pricey looking bike so I'm guessing if the product were there, he'd buy it. Catching a bumblebee in the face at 90 km/h+ sucks no matter who you pray to. If anyone here knows anything about styrofoam and fiberglass fabrication, email me. I know a few things about industrial design & marketing. Let's make some money and tick off some judges.
( figure if you leverage the already-ther protection given by the turban, and add the chinstrap that makes a helmet an approved helmet we're not looking at much in the way of additional weight. Throw on a visor, offer custom paint jobs, and boom... dastaar-lids dot com!
Posted by: Pattern/Opportunity Recognition | 2008-03-07 9:44:55 AM
So what's the primary reason for the opposition to allowing Sikhs to go helmet-free?
Is it general support for helmet laws and safety?
Is it opposition to the idea of creating a religious-based exemption to a law and the unequal application of that law?
Is it a concern that we are making too many concessions to new Canadians and in doing so are losing our national identity?
To me this is a simple matter: helmet laws are a product of the nanny state and a petty encroachment on our freedom. Let the Sikhs be the first to escape this injustice and perhaps there will be an opportunity for others to do so in the future.
Laws should be based on property rights and created to protect our liberties – not to realize some public policy obsession with personal safety and certainly not to help the government contain healthcare costs.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-07 9:53:22 AM
>"Does anyone else see a decent opportunity to design a turban-friendly full face helmet for men like Mr. Badesha?
Pattern/Opportunity Recognition | 7-Mar-08 9:44:55 AM
Helmets don't have to be full face.
Mr. Badesha or any other turban wearer could simply use the same plaster casting of more modern binding material in the cloth and create his own turban/helmet, thus satisfying the letter of the law just as bikers do when they where German military helmets.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 9:53:46 AM
>"To me this is a simple matter: helmet laws are a product of the nanny state and a petty encroachment on our freedom."
Matthew Johnston | 7-Mar-08 9:53:22 AM
Helmet laws were first pushed by the police as a tool for harassing motorcycle gangs.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 9:57:09 AM
"Helmets don't have to be full face. "
Oh I know, and neither do car seats need to be heated, but Ford makes all kinds of money by offering them. I'm thinking about marketing here and satisfying a possible "want", vs. just satisfying the law.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 9:58:56 AM
Yeah, sure, someone who doesn't "want" a helmet at all is going to want a fullface one if they have to have a helmet.
Weight isn't even a consideration.
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 10:07:14 AM
"someone who doesn't "want" a helmet"
Most of the senior citizens gardening with their $300 iPods didn't want a $80 discman, a $20 walkman, or even a $5 radio before they came along. It's not that they didn't want music, they just didn't want inconvenient music.
We don't know that Badesha doesn't want a helmet, all we know is that he doesn't want to reconfigure his turban to wear a generic helmet. That doesn't mean he'd be opposed to eye protection, better vision in all-weather riding, and having the cops off his case while he does his thing his way.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 10:28:18 AM
>"We don't know that Badesha doesn't want a helmet, all we know is that he doesn't want to reconfigure his turban to wear a generic helmet. That doesn't mean he'd be opposed to eye protection, better vision in all-weather riding, and having the cops off his case while he does his thing his way."
Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 10:28:18 AM
You're right, PR, we don't know that Mr. Badesha doesn't want a helmet.
He may want one to plant geraniums in.
We do know he doesn't want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle and probably means only wearing a turban for headgear, period.
If he is forced to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, whether Mr. Badesha has goggles or a full-face helmet, you can be certain he isn't doing things "his way".
"His way" means not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.
>"It's not that they didn't want music, they just didn't want inconvenient music."
Make no mistake, wearing a helmet of any configuration isn't going to be "convenient" for Mr. Badesha before or after he is on his motorcycle because he will then have to either take off his cloth turban to don the helmet, or re-wrap his turban after taking the helmet off.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 10:47:44 AM
"because he will then have to either take off his cloth turban to don the helmet, or re-wrap his turban after taking the helmet off." - Speller
You've never ever put a plastic ski boot on over a sock have you? I'm not talking about a helmet shaped like a turban, I'm talking about a helmet compatible with one. Something that can clip overtop the entire thing, perhaps using some of the thinking behind BMW's System 5 helmets, but with a few more hinges. And like I said, less material because the padding is already there thanks to the turban he keeps on. "Normal" helmets' volume is almost all from padding, so we're talking about maybe 10-15% of the weight of a normal helmet, but with 100% coverage (if that' what they want) and 100% of the laws requirements for a locked-in-place helmet.
But this is totally off topic.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 11:00:06 AM
Your description sounds large, inner padding or not.
Imagine the affect of wind on it.
Also, imagine the leverage on a person's neck if they dumped their bike.
But, again, maybe you're right PR.
Why don't you do a draft of one of those designs and post it on YouTube?
You could become rich or win the Nobel Peace Prize for cultural harmony and promoting the law.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 11:15:56 AM
"Your description sounds large, inner padding or not.
Imagine the affect of wind on it.
Also, imagine the leverage on a person's neck if they dumped their bike."
The enamel casing over the styrofoam on a motorbike helmet is less than half a millimeter thick. Since we only need to supplement the already-there padding of the turban we're only looking at maybe an additional 200-300 grams, and the wind profile won't be any more than his current turban, in fact it might be less since the fabric has to provide more drag than an enamel shell would. The total weight with the turban won't be any more than the weight of a decent traditional motorbike helmet. If there's a safety issue with those by weight, then that's a whole other discussion.
"Why don't you do a draft of one of those designs and post it on YouTube? You could become rich or win the Nobel Peace Prize for cultural harmony and promoting the law."
Cool! I figure it's a niche product so doing it up opensource might be wiser, make more money off the fame than the product. Like that Dean Kamen guy. I'll do up a draft 3d model in in Sketchup next week and have it up on YT by Thursday the 13th. If you're qualified, the nomination cutoffs are in February so we'd have to shoot for a 2009 prize.
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 11:31:52 AM
Don't forget the Order of Canada.
Think of all the Sikh children too.
Bicycle helmets are mandatory in Alberta.
The there are hockey helmets to design.
Maybe your motorcycle helmet shells could take a multifunctional approach: bobsleds, rock climbing, skydiving, construction/industrial, dwarf tossing, etc...
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 11:42:09 AM
Now you're thinking. Turn a compromise into an opportunity.
My understanding of dwarf tossing is you spin and toss like a hammer throw so you'd need a wide field of view. I guess a basic helmet design could be flexible enough to have a wide visor. Not sure if you need a helmet though, unless the rules have changed.
Unless you mean the tossed dwarf were sikh. Then sure. Yeah.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 11:49:34 AM
The "tosser" doesn't need a helmet unless he's driving home on a motorcycle.
;o)
I forgot to mention the TAC Team/military applications.
Those "shells" would have to made from Kevlar, though.
Also, I should mention fire-fighter's helmets.
You could probably get a government grant for development with all the Affirmative Action hiring you would advance.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 11:56:55 AM
I'll leave it to opensource engineers to work out the TAC challenges. From what I've read from the WW2 anecdotes, Sikh soldiers did fine without them. I guess that's why you see so many commando guys in just the lightest of ski masks or even modded skateboard helmets.
BTW I was under the impression Affirmative Action was a program in the States, and that our Employment Equity was quite a bit different. Not that it affects helmet design. Hopefully it won't require a grant. We're talking about a clay model, some paint-on enamel for a prototype, and some volunteer time from a guy with a turban. Maybe a modded Nerf gun at 100 psi to simulate bugs on the highway. Under $100 total for a prototype.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Nerf-Gun-Modifications./?comments=all
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 12:10:12 PM
I think we've overlooked the most frightening aspect of this story, Sikhs on motorcycles. Picture this chrome and leather cavalry, with gleaming ceremonial daggers, charging through the lower mainland, taking no prisoners.
I think it's a gift that they don't want to wear helmets. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Posted by: dp | 2008-03-07 12:14:47 PM
I was just on the DOT site looking up the FMVSS 218 standards for helmets and I guess you need to test it with a "Hemispherical Anvil" with a 82.5 J force.
I may need to pay my tester.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 12:15:01 PM
"I think we've overlooked the most frightening aspect of this story, Sikhs on motorcycles. Picture this chrome and leather cavalry, with gleaming ceremonial daggers, charging through the lower mainland, taking no prisoners"
Not near as cool as if they had turban-compatible exo-shells with wickedbad custom Troy Lee paint jobs.
www.troyleedesigns.com
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 12:20:31 PM
PR,
If you're going to use clay I recommend Sculpey.
Start with a wire armature, you can get specialized wire nets and Sculpey in craft stores like Michael's.
Sculpey has a consistency like Plasticine but can be baked in your kitchen oven at 250 F until it's hard enough to drill, sand, or saw.
Then you can attach hinges, bolts, rivets, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculpey
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 12:21:24 PM
Kudos to John West for his comments. I could only add that there should be no such law, but as there is one the judge made the correct decision. BC made a mockery of the law by allowing Sikhs not to wear a helmet. This shows how useless the law is, since it pretends to exist for our protection. Does this mean then that the Sikhs are not entitled to protection? I say it shows that the law does not do what it claims to do. It was just another case of someone whinning that the government should do something which any control-nazi loves to hear.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-03-07 12:29:43 PM
Alain,
I posted at 7-Mar-08 9:57:09 AM why the helmets law exists.
It doesn't exist to protect people.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 12:40:20 PM
This shiek guy should be allowed NOT to wear a helmet, while riding his bike, for the same reason that hooka bars MAY allow smoking in a public place - and the drug injection centers too, I presume - while everyone else is subject to the gument dictates. Some people are more 'equal' than others.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-03-07 2:01:07 PM
Some Sikhs wear turbans because of culture.
Their religion requires them to wear a head covering, not necessarily a turban.
It used to be part of Canadian culture to ride motorcycles without mandatory helmets.
That part of Canadian culture was swept aside for the helmet law.
One law for all or no law for any, say I.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 2:08:06 PM
Jema54j, sheikhs wear ghutrahs and iqals, sikhs wear turbans. I'm busy enough working on one helmet design, someone else can work out a solution for riding with an iqal, although I think it's considered ok to just stuff it in your dishdasha's pockets while you ride.
Now, these guys [picture link] can just sort themselves out, or catch the bus.
http://www.liamkeane.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/singmonks.jpg
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-07 2:16:25 PM
Do you have a designer solution for a smoke free hookah bar too, Pattern Recognition. One whiff of tobacco/Maryjane is LETHAL to innocent pleb nostrils. 'Dis is not fair to others'. Put that in your 'virtual' pipe and smoke it - let me know when you have a solution.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-03-07 5:56:51 PM
>"Now, these guys [picture link] can just sort themselves out, or catch the bus."
http://www.liamkeane.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/singmonks.jpg
Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 2:16:25 PM
Good one, PR!
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 7:49:39 PM
Reading over these comments, it is clear the conservative community on the WS is as petty, tyrannical, and statist as ever.
Conservatives are all in favour of dragging EVERYBODY down in to the muck of coercive government control and mediocrity.
Rather than celebrate one individual's attempt to create not only freedom for himself (which makes us all a little bit freer in the process)but an opening whereby further future exemptions can be secured, we have a bunch of people who are too cowardly to fight for their own freedom and instead celebrate the state's anal suffocation of someone, in this case a Sikh, who is different.
90% of you are conformity craving collectivist cowards and fail to understand how your cheerleading for government's obsessive fetish for safety and micromanagement is destroying the very society so-called conservatives claim to want to conserve. In the end, you people only conserve the tyrannical nanny state created by your alleged enemies, the "progressive" left. I hope you people all stab eachother to death with government approved safety pins.
Posted by: Jose Costello | 2008-03-07 8:18:55 PM
Brava, Mr. Costello!
In Canada, the conservative is a friend of the coercive state. The conservative is a fearful person who wants uniformity in all things and for each to know their place in the government grand scheme. We had that with Mussolini. Why do Canadians seek this for themselves?
No matter whether a great tyranny or small, the conservative Canadian clamours for more. And is roused to fits of anger and resentment when the "other" objects and seeks to protect his or her own small sphere of personal freedom. "Well if I can't be free, then I shall oppose freedom for any who tries for himself", says the Canadian conservative. If the default in Canada is constant government control, then that is the position that the conservative chooses as against efforts for freedom by any member of the herd who wanders away.
So very very sad. Such an embarassment it is to be a conservative in Canada today.
Posted by: Juliano Fauste | 2008-03-07 8:27:51 PM
Jose Costello said "90% of you are conformity craving collectivist cowards..." Yes, I'm with JC! Oh wait, does that make me a conformist JC?
"Brava, Mr. Costello!"
said Juliano Fauste...another pathetic conformist apparently.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-03-07 8:49:21 PM
Jose Costello | 7-Mar-08 8:18:55 PM
=
Juliano Fauste | 7-Mar-08 8:27:51 PM
It is an intellectual travesty to be your own cheerleader.
Same style, no paragraph breaks.
You are a TROLL!
You should be embarrassed, but it is probably an emotional leap which you cannot make.
moby - An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 8:52:58 PM
While I do not think the helmet laws are meant to protect us, or that the government's mandate should include the intent to protect us from our own bad judgement, when the individuals who comprise the government display their own bad judgement regularly.
If Canadians will suffer a law to exist, it should be applied uniformly.
That said, Mr. Badesha is playing the same culture card that Muslims play too frequently.
As the Sikh religion came into being opposing the predations of Islam in India, it is ironic that a Sikh is smoothing the way for Islamic hegemony in Canada by playing the "culture card" when Sikhs will be reaping the whirlwind along with the rest of us if Mr. Badesha were to be successful in his quest.
His success depends on carving out a niche of special treatment for cultural consideration.
Any Sikh knows that any head-covering will do to satisfy their religion.
It need not be a turban.
It could be a hat and then, if necessary, a helmet.
Again, bikers fought this helmet law long and hard decades ago and lost.
Where were the Sikhs then?
Sikhs did not stand along side the bikers at the point of decision, it should be noted.
One Law for all or no law for any.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-07 9:19:34 PM
Speller,
While it appears "Costello" and "Fauste" are certainly on the same page, and very likely know eachother IMHO (given the very close and convenient timings of their respective posts on the same subject, and a very clear probable libertarian bent), your assertion that one or both posts are the work of a "left wing troll" is a pro forma absurdity. You may note I am not using paragraph breaks, either. Am I of a set with your two troll bogeymen? Feel free to so assert, it only underscores your rather paranoid nature. Absence of graph breaks is in fact standard in internet writing; my own suspicion is it may have something to do with the box within which posts are composed and submitted. Warning: paragraph break...
The larger issue, Mr Speller, is you appear to be one of a small conservative (or is that NEO conservative) clique on the WS site who is hostile to outside, and especially libertarian, opinion and particularly any semblance of agreement or plurality thereof. I am dreadfully sorry to inform you, Mr Speller, (if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?) that you must do better in debate than simply make knee-jerk and wild accusations toward those with whom you disagree; I taught English for many years at the state college level in the Mid West, and can assure you that apart from the similar rendering of thier words, and an ideological congruence, that the writing style of "Costello" and "Fauste" could not be more dissimilar; I would suggest that "Fauste" likely speaks -- and writes -- English as a second language. Warning: SECOND paragraph break...
Bottom line, Mr. Speller, is conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are not conducive to exchanges in this particular stall in the marketplace of ideas; please stand down unless and until you can contribute something of significance.
Posted by: Embryo Defense | 2008-03-08 1:15:43 AM
>""Costello" and "Fauste" could not be more dissimilar;"
They, in fact, COULD be more dissimilar.
Even their time stamps are the same except allowing just enough interval for the composition of the second post.
They are the same Troll.
Neither of them contributes anything to the discussion, as you Embryo Defense did not.
I have several comments on the topic of this thread but neither you nor the Troll have done anything but a drive-by smear of Conservatives.
"Bottom line, Mr. Speller, is conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are not conducive to exchanges in this particular stall in the marketplace of ideas; please stand down unless and until you can contribute something of significance."
Embryo Defense | 8-Mar-08 1:15:43 AM
Blow it out your fat A$$.
Your "contribution" was piffle.
When you are a web master on the Shotgun or contribute yourself I"ll take heed of you opinions.
>" I am dreadfully sorry to inform you, Mr Speller, (if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?) that you must do better in debate than simply make knee-jerk and wild accusations toward those with whom you disagree; I taught English for many years at the state college level in the Mid West,"
..."if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?"...
You taught English at the college level?
LOL
I've been posting under the nic "Speller" and no other here since 2004.
I know a Troll when I see one and have busted many here and had them banned because they destroy the integrity of the Shotgun Blog.
Posting under multiple nics and cheer-leading one's own earlier comments is something that was promised to be mended here with a registry.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-08 9:17:23 AM
Pardon me while I don my Maxwell Smart turban of silence . ED is starting to give me a headache . Where`s my Viagra ?
Posted by: daveh | 2008-03-08 9:39:58 AM
Posting under multiple nics and cheer-leading one's own earlier comments is something that was promised to be mended here with a registry.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 9:17:23 AM
-----
Fair point, Speller. It's still on our to-do list, but will require a total rehaul of the site.
I'm actually very happy with our community blog and steady stream of news and opinion pieces going up on the site. We've got a long way to go, but with loyal readers and commenters, we'll get there.
This discussion thread is a good example of the diverse views held by conservatives.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-08 9:50:22 AM
Matthew Johnston,
Thank you for taking up the torch here and keeping this amazing Shotgun Blog alive.
I am very happy here too.
I only raised the registry issue to highlight the problem that multiple nic Trolls pose.
I've been on threads here in the past where psychopaths did nothing but post under new nics, never debating or addressing the topic, just smearing the regulars, and the frustration that engendered was akin to being a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest, with no furtherance of the discussion topic which was often a good issue.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-08 10:12:31 AM
I agree 100%.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-08 10:21:05 AM
When I was young, the bikers I knew wore a headband or a bandanna or a hat on their heads to keep their hair out of their eyes (or to prevent sunburned heads if they did not have hair). I do not think that it would be a stretch to support this sheik fella and then apply the 'head covering' rule to include anything that sits on the top of the head while riding a bike.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-03-08 1:21:16 PM
jema54j,
This "sheik fella" isn't trying to advance general freedom and have the helmet law made null and void.
He is only trying to carve out a special exemption for his culture, leave the helmet law otherwise in place, and the rest of us non-sheik fellas can pound sand.
He thinks he is special and the law applies to the rest of us, just not him.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-08 2:43:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.