View Full Version : the contrast!
Claire Petersky
May 10th 05, 10:41 PM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
[string of insults snipped]
I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
eccentricities.
Pat, go ride your bike.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
Yesterday it was really warm, in the 70s, and so of course everyone
was out on their bikes. I went out for a ride with a group and I got
back at nearly 8. On the way home, we passed a park and saw all these
guys dressed up in medieval/knight garbs, with shields and swords and
having big duels. They do this every tuesday night during the summer,
and we see all these goobers getting out of their cars with their
shields and doublets and other gear. In fact, they all looked like the
stereotypical goober. Quite a sight. I thought of how funny it is that
on a nice tuesday, we all get out on our bikes and they re enact
scenes from LOTR. It was pretty amusing to watch. Judging from what I
could see it's the only thing these people do out of doors. Well, at
least it gets them out of their parent's basement!
: Yesterday it was really warm, in the 70s, and so of course everyone
: was out on their bikes. I went out for a ride with a group and I got
: back at nearly 8. On the way home, we passed a park and saw all these
: guys dressed up in medieval/knight garbs, with shields and swords and
: having big duels. They do this every tuesday night during the summer,
: and we see all these goobers getting out of their cars with their
: shields and doublets and other gear. In fact, they all looked like the
: stereotypical goober. Quite a sight. I thought of how funny it is that
: on a nice tuesday, we all get out on our bikes and they re enact
: scenes from LOTR. It was pretty amusing to watch. Judging from what I
: could see it's the only thing these people do out of doors. Well, at
: least it gets them out of their parent's basement!
You come across as elitist, disdainful, weird, judgmental, parochial, and
chauvinistic (and one or two more words I don't want to post in a public
place).
Please stay in California.
Pat in TX
Michael
May 11th 05, 02:59 PM
Pat wrote:
> You come across as elitist, disdainful, weird, judgmental, parochial, and
> chauvinistic (and one or two more words I don't want to post in a public
> place).
>
> Please stay in California.
>
> Pat in TX
I thought "California" too, at first. But I'm pretty sure that "CA" is Canada.
So we're safe. ;-)
D. Dub
May 11th 05, 03:55 PM
.....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown, silly
colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and pretend they are
road bike racers!!!
...
> Yesterday it was really warm, in the 70s, and so of course everyone
> was out on their bikes. I went out for a ride with a group and I got
> back at nearly 8. On the way home, we passed a park and saw all these
> guys dressed up in medieval/knight garbs, with shields and swords and
> having big duels. They do this every tuesday night during the summer,
> and we see all these goobers getting out of their cars with their
> shields and doublets and other gear. In fact, they all looked like the
> stereotypical goober. Quite a sight. I thought of how funny it is that
> on a nice tuesday, we all get out on our bikes and they re enact
> scenes from LOTR. It was pretty amusing to watch. Judging from what I
> could see it's the only thing these people do out of doors. Well, at
> least it gets them out of their parent's basement!
Diane Rocereto
May 11th 05, 04:11 PM
"D. Dub" > wrote in message
news:e1pge.1318579$6l.496118@pd7tw2no...
> ....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown, silly
> colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and pretend they
are
> road bike racers!!!
>
no, that's almost as funny/silly as when Dennis P. Harris goes to the beach
and stuffs a potato down the front of his swimsuit and pretends that he is a
real man
William McHale
May 11th 05, 04:34 PM
Claire Petersky > wrote:
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> [string of insults snipped]
> I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
> eccentricities.
Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of their
parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them as being
stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the original poster
knows these people might have careers, own their own homes and have families
to go home to, just like most bike riders. Remember that many Americans view
the original poster viewed them.
--
Bill
Bill Sornson
May 11th 05, 04:58 PM
Diane Rocereto wrote:
> "D. Dub" > wrote in message
> news:e1pge.1318579$6l.496118@pd7tw2no...
>> ....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>> silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>> pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>
> no, that's almost as funny/silly as when Dennis P. Harris goes to the
> beach and stuffs a potato down the front of his swimsuit and pretends
> that he is a real man
Grumpy group this AM.
Bill "at least he didn't put the potato in the BACK of his swimsuit (old
joke)" S.
Peter Cole
May 11th 05, 05:02 PM
Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [string of insults snipped]
>
> I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
> eccentricities.
>
> Pat, go ride your bike.
>
I've got to agree. My daughter is a huge LOTR fan, attending the opening
of the last movie in full Legolas costume (sewn by yours truly), and
she'd be the first to laugh at such goings-on as being hopelessly geeky,
but would still probably want to join in. It's possible to both laugh
with and at. Especially if you're a cyclist.
Jeff Starr
May 11th 05, 05:26 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:11:05 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
> wrote:
>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>
>[string of insults snipped]
>
>I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
>eccentricities.
>
>Pat, go ride your bike.
I agree. There was nothing mean about the original post. My first
thought was, I wonder if any of them commented on the silly lycra
clad, helmeted cyclist.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Dennis Ferguson
May 11th 05, 07:51 PM
Pat > wrote:
>: Yesterday it was really warm, in the 70s, and so of course everyone
>: was out on their bikes.
[...]
> You come across as elitist, disdainful, weird, judgmental, parochial, and
> chauvinistic (and one or two more words I don't want to post in a public
> place).
>
> Please stay in California.
I can only wish "it was really warm, in the 70s" in California. It is
half way through May, for God's sake, and I'm still having to wear long
sleeve jerseys and undershirts to keep my (very thin) blood from congealing,
even on afternoon rides.
I've noticed they're having rather balmy weather in eastern Canada, though...
Dennis Ferguson
D. Dub wrote:
> ....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown, silly
> colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and pretend they are
> road bike racers!!!
>
Agreed.
What the hell is "LOTR"???
Dan
: Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of their
: parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them as being
: stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the original poster
: knows these people might have careers, own their own homes and have
families
: to go home to, just like most bike riders. Remember that many Americans
view
: the original poster viewed them.
:
: --
: Bill
That's my point. It's ignorant behavior to stereotype people based simply on
their hobby!
How many times have we heard that we cyclists are weird because of some
uninformed person's chauvinism?
Pat in TX
Bill Sornson
May 11th 05, 10:27 PM
Dan wrote:
> D. Dub wrote:
>> ....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>> silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>> pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> What the hell is "LOTR"???
Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>>D. Dub wrote:
>>
>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>>
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
>
>
> Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
>
>
Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR, but
I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems to
involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
Dan
RonSonic
May 12th 05, 01:00 AM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan > wrote:
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>>D. Dub wrote:
>>>
>>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
>>
>>
>> Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
>>
>>
>
>
>Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR, but
>I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
>pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems to
>involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
>
>I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the Rings. Read it.
Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic of modern
literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
Ron
RonSonic wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>D. Dub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>>>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>>>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
>>>
>>>
>>>Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR, but
>>I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
>>pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems to
>>involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
>>
>>I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
>
>
> No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the Rings. Read it.
>
> Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic of modern
> literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
Ron-And I'm surprised at your gullibility. My remarks were tongue in
cheek.
A sense of humor. Get one.
Or maybe you're just OTR...
Dan
:
: Ron-And I'm surprised at your gullibility. My remarks were tongue in
: cheek.
:
: A sense of humor. Get one.
:
: Or maybe you're just OTR...
:
: Dan
No, it's just that we can't SEE your cheek over the internet. All we can do
is go by what you write.
Pat in TX
Pat wrote:
> :
> : Ron-And I'm surprised at your gullibility. My remarks were tongue in
> : cheek.
> :
> : A sense of humor. Get one.
> :
> : Or maybe you're just OTR...
> :
> : Dan
>
> No, it's just that we can't SEE your cheek over the internet. All we can do
> is go by what you write.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
Pat-I dunno, I thought the "Star Wars" thing was pretty...
OH I get it, now YOU'RE doing it!
Good one, Pat.
Dan
Mark Mitchell
May 12th 05, 05:04 AM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:34:47 +0000, William McHale wrote:
> Claire Petersky > wrote:
>> "Pat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> [string of insults snipped]
>
>> I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
>> eccentricities.
>
> Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of their
> parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them as being
> stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the original poster
> knows these people might have careers, own their own homes and have
> families to go home to, just like most bike riders. Remember that many
> Americans view the original poster viewed them.
Actually, I would wager that many of those folks probably make fairly
hefty money. Have you ever priced chainmail? It's not mass-produced.
All hand-made by serious craftsmen who have put a lot of time and effort
into learning how.
The same holds true for any kind of (modern) medieval armor. Hell,
whatever they were using that was made of metal costs the world.
The textiles in my experience are made at home, from relatively
inexpensive materials.
Bottom line, I would be willing to bet that people who are seriously into
medieval history re-enactments have a hobby that's *far* more expensive
than the vast majority of cyclists.
Mark
Mark Mitchell
May 12th 05, 05:13 AM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:00:51 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan >
> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
>
> No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the Rings.
> Read it.
>
> Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic of
> modern literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
>
I'm a big reader, lots of Fantasy and SF, and this is one of those classic
series that I just can't seem to get through. I've made several attempts
over the years, but it always seems to me that I'm trying to wade through
hip-deep molasses.
Not disagreeing with your assesment of the book(s), just a comment.
Mark
bbaka
May 12th 05, 06:24 AM
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Actually, I would wager that many of those folks probably make fairly
> hefty money. Have you ever priced chainmail? It's not mass-produced.
> All hand-made by serious craftsmen who have put a lot of time and effort
> into learning how.
Maybe the OP should have said 'rich goobers'.
>
> The same holds true for any kind of (modern) medieval armor. Hell,
> whatever they were using that was made of metal costs the world.
If they have the money to buy chainmail and authentic looking armor I
would think they probably had more disposable income than me, and held
back on the comments.
>
> The textiles in my experience are made at home, from relatively
> inexpensive materials.
>
> Bottom line, I would be willing to bet that people who are seriously into
> medieval history re-enactments have a hobby that's *far* more expensive
> than the vast majority of cyclists.
>
> Mark
What does a good suit of armor cost these days?
Bill Baka
Mark Mitchell
May 12th 05, 06:59 AM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:24:49 -0700, bbaka wrote:
>
> What does a good suit of armor cost these days? Bill Baka
Depends what you're looking for.
For just a vest, chain will run $200+, leather, about the same, plate, 3K
and up.
Toy swords (blades that aren't intended to ever actually *hit* anything,
just look pretty) will start around $100-150. To get anything that'll
actually do anything, daggers start around $100, swords can get into 4
digits.
For your medieval shopping pleasure;
http://www.chainmailstore.com/scamerchantsrow/
Note, I am not an expert in any of this, BTW. I've just known people who
are into this stuff. More info at www.sca.org
Mark
Zoot Katz
May 12th 05, 07:15 AM
Thu, 12 May 2005 00:00:51 GMT,
>, RonSonic
> wrote of LOTR:
>Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic of modern
>literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
For damaged children, maybe.
It's sappy dreck and a waste of time, IMO.
I read and forgot it until I started to read it again years later.
--
zk
rayl
May 12th 05, 09:13 AM
RonSonic wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan >
wrote:
>
> >Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>
> >>>D. Dub wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full
blown,
> >>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
> >>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Agreed.
> >>>
> >>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
> >>
> >>
> >> Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR,
but
> >I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
> >pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems
to
> >involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
> >
> >I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
>
> No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the
Rings. Read it.
>
> Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic
of modern
> literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
>
> Ron
A Classic? No not really, pretentious,rambling, incoherent, chocked
full of Made up words. I suggest you read a real book without made up
words, If you're looking for fantasy, read Peake's Gormenghast trilogy,
Doesnt attract re-enactors either.In scale and depth it frankly blows
lotr (which is really only for people who read one book every fifteen
years anyway.
Oh Bugger i'm on the wrong list again. i will shut up now till i can
think of something to say about bikes and go away.
Tom Keats
May 12th 05, 09:29 AM
In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> It's sappy dreck and a waste of time, IMO.
Speaking of which, I've been enjoying the latest Dr Who
incarnation (Tuesday night, 8:00 PM, CBC/channel 2.)
I particularly enjoy that it's so antithetical to
the usual paramilitary settings in Hollywood sci-fi.
Brass neck and audacious wisecracks, instead of
uniforms and protocol and death-ray weapons.
In the last episode, Rose (the Doctor's current
companion) accidentally humanized the last surviving
Dalek. Very moving. Especially when it wanted to
feel sunlight, and described its humanly-mutated
condition as "sickness", before offing itself.
Also speaking of sappy dreck, I noticed tonight that
the Park Theatre is doing a free show of Casablanca --
7:00 PM, May 24. The Park had the whole city worried
when they announced their closure. But it's only
temporary, for upgrading seating & sound.
And getting away from sappy dreck, but more good news --
I see via the Trans-Action listserv, Momentum magazine
is coming back. Excellent.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Jeff Starr
May 12th 05, 04:31 PM
On 12 May 2005 01:13:07 -0700, "rayl" > wrote:
>A Classic? No not really, pretentious,rambling, incoherent, chocked
>full of Made up words. I suggest you read a real book without made up
>words, If you're looking for fantasy, read Peake's Gormenghast trilogy,
>Doesnt attract re-enactors either.In scale and depth it frankly blows
>lotr (which is really only for people who read one book every fifteen
>years anyway.
>
>Oh Bugger i'm on the wrong list again. i will shut up now till i can
>think of something to say about bikes and go away.
I read the trilogy [that's right - 3 books + The Hobbit] over 30 years
ago, when I was maybe 18, I enjoyed it. It's as simple as that.
Tell me, does it somehow make you feel superior, to not only criticize
the books, but those who read them. I really don't know if people who
do this, are just nasty pricks, or if they suffer from some
inferiority complex that requires them to demonstrate their attempts
at superiority over others. I see this behavior with books, music,
taste in movies, and lots of other area.
Above, in this thread, someone felt the need to call Casablanca some
kind of dreck. So, I guess, those of us who enjoyed Casablanca, and
are Bogart fans, must lack taste.
We all have our guilty pleasures and most find enjoyment in some
things that are not the best of their genre. Instead of ripping on
them, how about offering some positive options.
For example, above - Hey, if you enjoyed LOTR, I suggest you check out
"Peake's Gormenghast trilogy". That way you come across as helpful,
rather than as an elitest literary snob.
I'm not perfect at this either, but I try to refrain from that type of
criticism. I just see this type of behavior, way too often on the
internet.
And finally, when I find myself on the wrong list, I just go away
quietly. But, that's just me;-)
Life is Good!
Jeff
William McHale
May 12th 05, 05:12 PM
rayl > wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan >
> wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> Dan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>D. Dub wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full
> blown,
>> >>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>> >>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Agreed.
>> >>>
>> >>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR,
> but
>> >I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
>> >pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems
> to
>> >involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
>> >
>> >I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
>>
>> No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the
> Rings. Read it.
>>
>> Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic
> of modern
>> literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
>>
>> Ron
> A Classic? No not really, pretentious,rambling, incoherent, chocked
> full of Made up words. I suggest you read a real book without made up
> words, If you're looking for fantasy, read Peake's Gormenghast trilogy,
> Doesnt attract re-enactors either.In scale and depth it frankly blows
> lotr (which is really only for people who read one book every fifteen
> years anyway.
Not that this should be on a bike group but...
I think it can effectively be argued that LOTR is a classic even if you don't
like it. Whether one loves it (as millions do) or hate it (maybe as many
as who love it) the work represents a watershed in fantasy literature; so
must so that pretty much all of the fantasy written today in some sense
embraces or reacts to the ideas that were present in it.
--
Bill
> Oh Bugger i'm on the wrong list again. i will shut up now till i can
> think of something to say about bikes and go away.
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:26:50 GMT, Jeff Starr >
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:11:05 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
> wrote:
>
>>"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>[string of insults snipped]
>>
>>I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
>>eccentricities.
>>
>>Pat, go ride your bike.
>
>I agree. There was nothing mean about the original post. My first
>thought was, I wonder if any of them commented on the silly lycra
>clad, helmeted cyclist.
>
>
>Life is Good!
>Jeff
They probably did and do.... they're so pasty looking they probably
can't understand why anyone would actually go out in the sun when
there's so much good stuff on the internet! And they're not the only
people who think we look weird.
Of course I'm tolerant.... but they did look so hiliarious, I had to
laugh. Well, nothing is really wrong with a little fantasy... now I'm
off to drink a flagon of Mead!
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:04:30 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:34:47 +0000, William McHale wrote:
>
>> Claire Petersky > wrote:
>>> "Pat" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>> [string of insults snipped]
>>
>>> I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
>>> eccentricities.
>>
>> Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of their
>> parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them as being
>> stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the original poster
>> knows these people might have careers, own their own homes and have
>> families to go home to, just like most bike riders. Remember that many
>> Americans view the original poster viewed them.
>
>Actually, I would wager that many of those folks probably make fairly
>hefty money. Have you ever priced chainmail? It's not mass-produced.
>All hand-made by serious craftsmen who have put a lot of time and effort
>into learning how.
>
>The same holds true for any kind of (modern) medieval armor. Hell,
>whatever they were using that was made of metal costs the world.
>
>The textiles in my experience are made at home, from relatively
>inexpensive materials.
>
>Bottom line, I would be willing to bet that people who are seriously into
>medieval history re-enactments have a hobby that's *far* more expensive
>than the vast majority of cyclists.
>
>Mark
Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's
how they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it
had to be seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.
Tom Keats
May 12th 05, 08:28 PM
In article >,
Jeff Starr > writes:
> Above, in this thread, someone felt the need to call Casablanca some
> kind of dreck.
'Twas I.
> So, I guess, those of us who enjoyed Casablanca, and
> are Bogart fans, must lack taste.
Au contraire mon frere. Stories with sappy dreck content
(such as Casablanca) can have all kinds of redeeming qualities
and features. Maybe that even applies to some of those
touchie-feelie Robin Williams efforts. Sappy dreckness itself
can even work for a story. Kurt Vonnegut put it to good use,
but he wasn't pretentious with it (IMO). I don't mind a little
sappy dreck when I've got the taste for something sweet and
fluffy. As long as it isn't too cloying or maudlin.
But I've gotta admit, I find Tolkein's hobbit stuff can be
rather too cute, and confusable with The Wizard of Oz. I
think it owes much of its popularity to '60s drug culture.
But it is an interesting exercise in artificial reality.
And at least LOTR doesn't have a whole cult talking in
Klingon or Elven (yet) (I hope).
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Mark Mitchell
May 12th 05, 09:30 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:28:02 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
<snip>
> And at least LOTR doesn't have a whole cult talking in
> Klingon or Elven (yet) (I hope).
>
Hate to break it to ya, but Elvish has been around for a long time. Both
written and spoken. More than one dialect too, if I recall correctly.
Hey, to each their own.
Mark
Mark Mitchell
May 12th 05, 09:42 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:32:28 -0400, blanshay wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:04:30 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:34:47 +0000, William McHale wrote:
>>
>>> Claire Petersky > wrote:
>>>> "Pat" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>> [string of insults snipped]
>>>
>>>> I thought she came across as bemusedly tolerant of other people's
>>>> eccentricities.
>>>
>>> Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of
>>> their parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them
>>> as being stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the
>>> original poster knows these people might have careers, own their own
>>> homes and have families to go home to, just like most bike riders.
>>> Remember that many Americans view the original poster viewed them.
>>
>>Actually, I would wager that many of those folks probably make fairly
>>hefty money. Have you ever priced chainmail? It's not mass-produced.
>>All hand-made by serious craftsmen who have put a lot of time and effort
>>into learning how.
>>
>>The same holds true for any kind of (modern) medieval armor. Hell,
>>whatever they were using that was made of metal costs the world.
>>
>>The textiles in my experience are made at home, from relatively
>>inexpensive materials.
>>
>>Bottom line, I would be willing to bet that people who are seriously into
>>medieval history re-enactments have a hobby that's *far* more expensive
>>than the vast majority of cyclists.
>>
>>Mark
>
>
> Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
> expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's how
> they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it had to be
> seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.
I mentioned the financial outlay to respond to your characterization of
no life losers living in their parents' basement.
And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly tolerant'.
What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
not.
Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
own.
Mark
On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
>> A Classic? No not really, pretentious,rambling, incoherent, chocked
>> full of Made up words. I suggest you read a real book without made up
>> words, If you're looking for fantasy, read Peake's Gormenghast trilogy,
>> Doesnt attract re-enactors either.In scale and depth it frankly blows
>> lotr (which is really only for people who read one book every fifteen
>> years anyway.
>
>Not that this should be on a bike group but...
>I think it can effectively be argued that LOTR is a classic even if you don't
>like it. Whether one loves it (as millions do) or hate it (maybe as many
>as who love it) the work represents a watershed in fantasy literature; so
>must so that pretty much all of the fantasy written today in some sense
>embraces or reacts to the ideas that were present in it.
Well, that's true, a classic doesn't necessarily mean everyone will
love it. I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen, and yet her books are
classics. And as anyone who was an english major will tell you,we had
to read plenty of books that were required because they are classics
and we didn't like them. But you had to read them and write papers etc
and had no choice. Like "Pilgrims Progress"- does anyone willingly
read that? Fortunately it wasn't on any of my class reading lists, but
there were other books I had to snore my way through.
I also am among those who can't see the big appeal of LOTR. It seems
to be that it's not really about how great the writing is, but it's
about the characters and the whole 'world' it creates. I rarely hear
anyone rave about the great writing; it's more about the story and the
characters and the wizards. ANd there's a reason for that- the writing
isn't really that good! And a lot of popular books are like that.
Harlequin romances are dreck- it's the stories and the fantasy that
are the big attractions. I'm just using them as an example. Anyways
that's my opinion- remember, it's all subjective. We're all allowed
to like or dislike any books, or bikes for that matter.
Jeff Starr
May 13th 05, 12:31 AM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:42:26 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
>> expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's how
>> they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it had to be
>> seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.
>
>I mentioned the financial outlay to respond to your characterization of
>no life losers living in their parents' basement.
>
>And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
>not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly tolerant'.
>
>What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
>their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
>not.
>
>Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
>stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
>own.
>
>Mark
Mark, you are reading things into this, that aren't said. She used a
coke addition as an example of "an expensive habit". There was no
direct or to my reading, implied comparison to the re-enactors. She
says "more worthy", you see "not worthy".
Just as people often find a group of lycra clad bicyclists amusing,
she saw those people as amusing. You are trying to make the OP less
tolerant and likable, than she really is.
And your insult od dog shows, is no more tolerant than her comments on
the re-enactors. Putting your little disclaimer on the bottom " But,
to each their own.", is supposed to show you as being the better, more
tolerant person. I don't think so.
Life is Good!
Jeff
1oki
May 13th 05, 12:44 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
[...]
> I also am among those who can't see the big appeal of LOTR. It seems
> to be that it's not really about how great the writing is, but it's
> about the characters and the whole 'world' it creates. I rarely hear
> anyone rave about the great writing; it's more about the story and the
> characters and the wizards.
Me too. As genres I really like science fiction and alternate history.
REaders of both have a fairly large crossover to fantasy. And to be fair
their have been a few odd fantasy stories I have enjoyed - those done for
humour with tongue firmly in cheek. I recall one short story that had a
character named Condom the Trojan amongst other bon mots.
When I was much younger I got The Hobbit, described to me as a good
introductory book to LotR. I did finish it but I had absolutely no desire to
read any more of the saga.
> We're all allowed
> to like or dislike any books, or bikes for that matter.
No. Everyone must like bikes!
:)
Just think: If Tolkein had put all of his coterie of characters on bikes he
could have wrapped their quest in one book.
--
'Lemme 'splain... No, no time.
Lemme sum up.' -inigo montoya
RonSonic
May 13th 05, 02:08 AM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:22:24 -0400, Dan > wrote:
>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:24:04 -0400, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>D. Dub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>....almost as funny/silly as grown men who dress up in full blown,
>>>>>>silly colored team kit on their outrageuosly expensive bikes and
>>>>>>pretend they are road bike racers!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the hell is "LOTR"???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lord, it rings a bell... Any help?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Word games. OK I'll bite. I've heard people described as being OTR, but
>>>I'm guessing it's not related. Must be some kind of kid-related
>>>pop-culture drek that has slipped beneath my childless radar. Seems to
>>>involve costumes. A character from "Star Wars", perhaps?
>>>
>>>I'm sure you're all ROFL'ing at my expense by now...
>>
>>
>> No, but I am surprised at your cultural illiteracy. Lord of the Rings. Read it.
>>
>> Despite the imitators, the movies and all else, it remains a classic of modern
>> literature. One of the few truly great books of the last century.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
>Ron-And I'm surprised at your gullibility. My remarks were tongue in
>cheek.
>A sense of humor. Get one.
Oh. Claiming ignorance repeatedly is funny. I'll remember that.
>Or maybe you're just OTR...
Hahha. Uhhh, what's that?
Ron
>
>Dan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400, "1oki" >
wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
>[...]
>> I also am among those who can't see the big appeal of LOTR. It seems
>> to be that it's not really about how great the writing is, but it's
>> about the characters and the whole 'world' it creates. I rarely hear
>> anyone rave about the great writing; it's more about the story and the
>> characters and the wizards.
>
> Me too. As genres I really like science fiction and alternate history.
>REaders of both have a fairly large crossover to fantasy. And to be fair
>their have been a few odd fantasy stories I have enjoyed - those done for
>humour with tongue firmly in cheek. I recall one short story that had a
>character named Condom the Trojan amongst other bon mots.
>
> When I was much younger I got The Hobbit, described to me as a good
>introductory book to LotR. I did finish it but I had absolutely no desire to
>read any more of the saga.
>
>> We're all allowed
>> to like or dislike any books, or bikes for that matter.
>
>
> No. Everyone must like bikes!
>
>:)
>
> Just think: If Tolkein had put all of his coterie of characters on bikes he
>could have wrapped their quest in one book.
Hahaha....you're right. Anyone who doesn't like bikes is a DEVIANT!
THis reminds me of a story that was recently in the news, some kid was
injured in the eye playing paintball. So there were some stories about
paintball and how popular it's becoming. However, everyone they
interviewed looked, well, rather dorky.Except, instead of wearing
medieval hobbit garb, they wear miitary style uniforms and face
masks. I guess it's just another form of role playing game.
..Maybe was just who they chose to interview, or the people (adults
that is) who are drawn to this activity are REALLY goobers, albeit in
better physical shape than the Hobbit guys.
One guy they talked to (he looked relatively attractive) was
explaining the lure of paintball. "It gives you a chance to get out
into the sunshine and fresh air, and it's a social occasion as well."
I thought: Gee, if that's the attraction, then why not just get
yourself a bike?
RonSonic wrote:
> Oh. Claiming ignorance repeatedly is funny. I'll remember that.
>
>
>>Or maybe you're just OTR...
>
>
> Hahha. Uhhh, what's that?
See, you're a natural. Now try with a little more finesse.
Dan
bbaka
May 13th 05, 03:53 AM
Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
> stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
> own.
>
> Mark
>
Those cars with the 3,000 watt stereos are a good moron alert for me to
pull over when riding. What ****es me off is when a car goes by at 2:00
AM and shakes my house and me awake. Of course their doors will soon
fall off from metal fatigue, so I may get the last laugh. What musical
quality is there to a series of 20 Hertz blasts and nothing else? No
lyrics, no high notes, just resonating all the walls and shaking their
cars apart.
Bill Baka, who can still hear.
Mark Mitchell
May 13th 05, 07:01 AM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:31:47 +0000, Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:42:26 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
>>> expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's
>>> how they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it
>>> had to be seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.
>>
>>I mentioned the financial outlay to respond to your characterization of
>>no life losers living in their parents' basement.
>>
>>And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
>>not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly
>>tolerant'.
>>
>>What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
>>their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
>>not.
>>
>>Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
>>stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
>>own.
>>
>>Mark
>
> Mark, you are reading things into this, that aren't said. She used a coke
> addition as an example of "an expensive habit". There was no direct or to
> my reading, implied comparison to the re-enactors. She says "more worthy",
> you see "not worthy".
>
Well, I guess we just disagree. I feel that when you say "Cocaine is an
expensive habit too.", then immediately follow that up with "Money doesn't
make it more worthy.", I don't see how you can come to any conclusion
*other* than re-enactment == unworthy (of what, Bog only knows).
> Just as people often find a group of lycra clad bicyclists amusing, she
> saw those people as amusing. You are trying to make the OP less tolerant
> and likable, than she really is.
>
I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
> And your insult od dog shows, is no more tolerant than her comments on
> the re-enactors. Putting your little disclaimer on the bottom " But, to
> each their own.", is supposed to show you as being the better, more
> tolerant person. I don't think so.
>
I don't believe that I insulted anything. Read what I said.
"PERSONALLY, I find dog shows... etc." Very important. Pretty clearly
says "This is my opinion, nothing more."
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff
And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject line.
Mark
Claire Petersky
May 13th 05, 08:12 AM
"Mark Mitchell" > wrote in message
...
> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
Any particular reason why?
If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:01:37 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> wrote:
>>>And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
>>>not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly
>>>tolerant'.
>>>
>>>What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
>>>their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
>>>not.
>>>
>>>Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
>>>stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
>>>own.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>> Mark, you are reading things into this, that aren't said. She used a coke
>> addition as an example of "an expensive habit". There was no direct or to
>> my reading, implied comparison to the re-enactors. She says "more worthy",
>> you see "not worthy".
>>
>Well, I guess we just disagree. I feel that when you say "Cocaine is an
>expensive habit too.", then immediately follow that up with "Money doesn't
>make it more worthy.", I don't see how you can come to any conclusion
>*other* than re-enactment == unworthy (of what, Bog only knows).
>
>> Just as people often find a group of lycra clad bicyclists amusing, she
>> saw those people as amusing. You are trying to make the OP less tolerant
>> and likable, than she really is.
>>
>I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>
>> And your insult od dog shows, is no more tolerant than her comments on
>> the re-enactors. Putting your little disclaimer on the bottom " But, to
>> each their own.", is supposed to show you as being the better, more
>> tolerant person. I don't think so.
>>
>I don't believe that I insulted anything. Read what I said.
>
>"PERSONALLY, I find dog shows... etc." Very important. Pretty clearly
>says "This is my opinion, nothing more."
>
>>
>> Life is Good!
>> Jeff
>
>And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject line.
>
>Mark
Good thing, you seem to misunderstand everything everyone says
anyways.
Bill Sornson
May 13th 05, 05:49 PM
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:01:37 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> > wrote:
>> And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject
>> line.
> Good thing, you seem to misunderstand everything everyone says
> anyways.
Nice! (My vote for flame of the day.)
Bill "even his addy has lots 'o WRONG in it" S.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
> wrote:
>"Mark Mitchell" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>
>Any particular reason why?
>
>If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
>style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
>wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
>activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
>
>If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
>personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
>in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
>concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
>
>Warm Regards,
>
>
>Claire Petersky
>
>Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
>See the books I've set free at:
>http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>
Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
RonSonic
May 14th 05, 03:30 AM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:45:25 -0400, wrote:
>On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400, "1oki" >
>wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
>>[...]
>>> I also am among those who can't see the big appeal of LOTR. It seems
>>> to be that it's not really about how great the writing is, but it's
>>> about the characters and the whole 'world' it creates. I rarely hear
>>> anyone rave about the great writing; it's more about the story and the
>>> characters and the wizards.
>>
>> Me too. As genres I really like science fiction and alternate history.
>>REaders of both have a fairly large crossover to fantasy. And to be fair
>>their have been a few odd fantasy stories I have enjoyed - those done for
>>humour with tongue firmly in cheek. I recall one short story that had a
>>character named Condom the Trojan amongst other bon mots.
>>
>> When I was much younger I got The Hobbit, described to me as a good
>>introductory book to LotR. I did finish it but I had absolutely no desire to
>>read any more of the saga.
>>
>>> We're all allowed
>>> to like or dislike any books, or bikes for that matter.
>>
>>
>> No. Everyone must like bikes!
>>
>>:)
>>
>> Just think: If Tolkein had put all of his coterie of characters on bikes he
>>could have wrapped their quest in one book.
>
>Hahaha....you're right. Anyone who doesn't like bikes is a DEVIANT!
>
>THis reminds me of a story that was recently in the news, some kid was
>injured in the eye playing paintball. So there were some stories about
>paintball and how popular it's becoming. However, everyone they
>interviewed looked, well, rather dorky.Except, instead of wearing
>medieval hobbit garb, they wear miitary style uniforms and face
>masks. I guess it's just another form of role playing game.
>.Maybe was just who they chose to interview, or the people (adults
>that is) who are drawn to this activity are REALLY goobers, albeit in
>better physical shape than the Hobbit guys.
Well, look at who is always the most eager to be interviewed. Normal, calm,
reasonable people aren't the ones who gravitate toward the guy with the
microphone.
> One guy they talked to (he looked relatively attractive) was
>explaining the lure of paintball. "It gives you a chance to get out
>into the sunshine and fresh air, and it's a social occasion as well."
>
>I thought: Gee, if that's the attraction, then why not just get
>yourself a bike?
Why ride a bike when you can run around the woods shooting at your buddies. I
don't paintball, but it's pretty easy to see how it caught on.
Ron
Ron
Zoot Katz
May 14th 05, 04:58 AM
Fri, 13 May 2005 21:43:40 -0400,
>,
wrote:
>
>Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
The hairy toes put me off right away.
Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.
--
zk
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:58:29 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:
>Fri, 13 May 2005 21:43:40 -0400,
>,
wrote:
>
>>
>>Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>>am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>
>The hairy toes put me off right away.
>
>Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
>Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.
LOL... with the new Star wars movie it looks like it's going to be The
Summer of Goobs. A friend of mine actually saw someone camped outside
the movie theatre wearing a Darth Vader mask. WHen is that movie
supposed to open anyways?
On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:30:18 GMT, RonSonic >
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:45:25 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400, "1oki" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
>>>[...]
>Well, look at who is always the most eager to be interviewed. Normal, calm,
>reasonable people aren't the ones who gravitate toward the guy with the
>microphone.
>
>> One guy they talked to (he looked relatively attractive) was
>>explaining the lure of paintball. "It gives you a chance to get out
>>into the sunshine and fresh air, and it's a social occasion as well."
>>
>>I thought: Gee, if that's the attraction, then why not just get
>>yourself a bike?
>
>Why ride a bike when you can run around the woods shooting at your buddies. I
>don't paintball, but it's pretty easy to see how it caught on.
>
>Ron
>
Yes, it is, I can see how you can get hooked on it. Well, OTOH, at
least they aren't sitting around the house watching TV and eating
Cheesies...
Bill Sornson
May 14th 05, 05:58 AM
Zoot Katz wrote:
> Fri, 13 May 2005 21:43:40 -0400,
> >,
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>> am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>
> The hairy toes put me off right away.
>
> Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
> Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.
That's just nuts. {pause} Who pays attention to the CBC?
Bill "rimshot" S.
Zoot Katz
May 14th 05, 07:02 AM
Sat, 14 May 2005 00:54:37 -0400,
>,
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>>>am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>>
>>The hairy toes put me off right away.
>>
>>Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
>>Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.
>
>LOL... with the new Star wars movie it looks like it's going to be The
>Summer of Goobs. A friend of mine actually saw someone camped outside
>the movie theatre wearing a Darth Vader mask. WHen is that movie
>supposed to open anyways?
There's a new Star Wars?
I think I've missed at least the last four.
There's a breed of die-hard goobs who have already downloaded leaked
copies of the final cut.
I heard that a bunch of them lined up in front of the wrong theatre
before it was announced where it was going to be released.
--
zk
William McHale
May 15th 05, 03:09 PM
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
> > wrote:
>>"Mark Mitchell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>>> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>>
>>Any particular reason why?
>>
>>If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
>>style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
>>wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
>>activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
>>
>>If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
>>personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
>>in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
>>concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
>>
>>Warm Regards,
>>
>>
>>Claire Petersky
>>
>>Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
>>See the books I've set free at:
>>http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>>
> Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
> am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.
Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.
A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
term to their face?
--
Bill
On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:09:07 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>"Mark Mitchell" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>>>> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>>>
>>>Any particular reason why?
>>>
>>>If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
>>>style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
>>>wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
>>>activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
>>>
>>>If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
>>>personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
>>>in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
>>>concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
>>>
>>>Warm Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>Claire Petersky
>>>
>>>Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
>>>See the books I've set free at:
>>>http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>>>
>
>> Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>> am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>
>No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
>Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
>others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.
>
>Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
>because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.
>
>A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
>term to their face?
Nah, they don't think of themselves as goobers. I am the Unenlightened
one because I just 'don't understand.' It's like talking to the Manson
GIrls about Charlie.
William McHale
May 16th 05, 04:32 AM
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:09:07 GMT, William McHale
> > wrote:
wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>"Mark Mitchell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>>>>> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>>>>
>>>>Any particular reason why?
>>>>
>>>>If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
>>>>style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
>>>>wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
>>>>activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
>>>>
>>>>If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
>>>>personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
>>>>in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
>>>>concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
>>>>
>>>>Warm Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Claire Petersky
>>>>
>>>>Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
>>>>See the books I've set free at:
>>>>http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>>>>
>>
>>> Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>>> am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>>
>>No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
>>Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
>>others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.
>>
>>Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
>>because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.
>>
>>A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
>>term to their face?
> Nah, they don't think of themselves as goobers. I am the Unenlightened
> one because I just 'don't understand.' It's like talking to the Manson
> GIrls about Charlie.
And again you put them down. They are not goobers, they are simply people
who choose to spend their time differently than you do. Cyclists are amongst
the groups that are generally looked upon with disdane by general society;
we are among the last people who should criticize others for their choice of
hobbies. Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
--
Bill
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
May 16th 05, 04:54 AM
"William McHale" > wrote in message ...
> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
> being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
> dream of being a virtuous warrior.
But, no matter how hard they try those guys are never going to be
a real virtuous warrior.
Zoot Katz
May 16th 05, 05:04 AM
Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, >,
William McHale > wrote:
> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
True enough.
But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
--
zk
William McHale
May 16th 05, 02:29 PM
Zoot Katz > wrote:
> Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, >,
> William McHale > wrote:
>> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
> True enough.
> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
> LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
How is dreaming of winning one of the great Tours any less childlike than
dreaming of military glory? Is dreaming that one will be the next Lance
Armstrong any different than dreaming that one will be the next Henry V?
Of course it isn't. Indeed to the eyes of a public who engage in neither
cycling nor SCA type activities there is little difference between the guy
who puts on chain mail and the guy who dresses in team kit and owns a $5000
carbon fiber bicycle just so he can go for a bike ride.
Our fantasies are part of who we are; they remind us that we can be greater
than we actually are (even if the fantasies are unrealistic in and of
themselves).
--
Bill
William McHale
May 16th 05, 02:30 PM
Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote:
> "William McHale" > wrote in message ...
>> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>> being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>> dream of being a virtuous warrior.
> But, no matter how hard they try those guys are never going to be
> a real virtuous warrior.
Nor are the vast majority of cyclists ever going to win even a stage in a great
tour let alone win a tour. There are real warriors in this world, and their
are real professional cyclists but the numbers of each are rather low.
--
Bill
Elisa Francesca Roselli
May 16th 05, 03:14 PM
Zoot Katz a écrit :
> True enough.
> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
> LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
Please, sir, what's a goober?
Elisa Francesca Roselli
Ile de France
Elisa Francesca Roselli
May 16th 05, 03:18 PM
a écrit :
> They probably did and do.... they're so pasty looking they probably
> can't understand why anyone would actually go out in the sun when
> there's so much good stuff on the internet! And they're not the only
> people who think we look weird.
Remembering all the threads about how LOTR would look had all the
characters been riding bikes rather than horses, and whether Eowyn was
sexier than Arwen, and what kind of bike corresponded to elves, orcs
etc., I would personally suspect that there is more than a little
crossover between these two groups ... ;°>
Elisa Francesca Roselli
Ile de France
Elisa Francesca Roselli
May 16th 05, 03:22 PM
Tom Keats a écrit :
> Speaking of which, I've been enjoying the latest Dr Who
> incarnation (Tuesday night, 8:00 PM, CBC/channel 2.)
I _adore_ Christopher Eccleston - he's been a heartthrob of mine ever
since JUDE. Wish I were in the UK now to watch.
EFR
Ile de France
Jeff Starr
May 16th 05, 03:29 PM
On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
>
>
> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
How do you know that they all want to be virtuous warriors. My guess
is that some dream of being an org, or some other form of evil. Look
at all the people who dress up as Darth Vader, I don't think he is a
good guy. At least he wasn't in the episode that I saw.
There is a difference in dreaming of being a Lance and of dreaming of
being a character in a fantasy. One is a worthy goal and you benefit,
even if you fall way short. The other is just fantasy.
Live and let live, but it is somewhat amusing. Most likely harmless,
but to me amusing.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Bill Sornson
May 16th 05, 04:36 PM
Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> Zoot Katz a écrit :
>
>> True enough.
>> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while
>> those LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
>
> Please, sir, what's a goober?
In this context, a geek. Or a nerd. (Lamer?) Never heard it used like
that, though.
/Normally/ the term "goober" connotes something like a "rube" --
unsophisticated, simple, dull, etc.
Thesornus
William McHale
May 16th 05, 04:46 PM
Jeff Starr > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
> How do you know that they all want to be virtuous warriors. My guess
> is that some dream of being an org, or some other form of evil. Look
> at all the people who dress up as Darth Vader, I don't think he is a
> good guy. At least he wasn't in the episode that I saw.
Well ok, virtuous warrior or whatever, its still a fantasy.
> There is a difference in dreaming of being a Lance and of dreaming of
> being a character in a fantasy. One is a worthy goal and you benefit,
> even if you fall way short. The other is just fantasy.
They are both just fantasy. Neither is more or less praise worthy than the
other. Both are harmless and both have their benefits even if said benefits
are not immediately apparent to people who do not indulge in one particular
type of fantasy.
> Live and let live, but it is somewhat amusing. Most likely harmless,
> but to me amusing.
And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
has regarding cyclists.
--
Bill
William McHale
May 16th 05, 04:48 PM
Elisa Francesca Roselli > wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> True enough.
>> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
>> LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
> Please, sir, what's a goober?
The term derives from the Southern US term for peanut. Essentially a calling
someone a goober is more or less equivalent to calling them a nut, usually
with the conotation that they are something of a simpleton.
--
Bill
On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
wrote:
>>>> Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
>>>> am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.
>>>
>>>No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
>>>Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
>>>others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.
>>>
>>>Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
>>>because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.
>>>
>>>A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
>>>term to their face?
>
>> Nah, they don't think of themselves as goobers. I am the Unenlightened
>> one because I just 'don't understand.' It's like talking to the Manson
>> GIrls about Charlie.
>
>And again you put them down. They are not goobers, they are simply people
>who choose to spend their time differently than you do. Cyclists are amongst
>the groups that are generally looked upon with disdane by general society;
>we are among the last people who should criticize others for their choice of
>hobbies. Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
Right, so that's my stroke. I think they're goobers. Live and let
live.
On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:04:29 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:
>Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, >,
>William McHale > wrote:
>
>> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
>
>True enough.
>But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
>LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
Anyone over the age of say, 12, who runs dresses like a sci-fi
character or medieval warrior,in my book + goober.
On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:46:47 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
>Jeff Starr > wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
>> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>>>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>>>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
>
>> How do you know that they all want to be virtuous warriors. My guess
>> is that some dream of being an org, or some other form of evil. Look
>> at all the people who dress up as Darth Vader, I don't think he is a
>> good guy. At least he wasn't in the episode that I saw.
>
>Well ok, virtuous warrior or whatever, its still a fantasy.
>
>> There is a difference in dreaming of being a Lance and of dreaming of
>> being a character in a fantasy. One is a worthy goal and you benefit,
>> even if you fall way short. The other is just fantasy.
>
>They are both just fantasy. Neither is more or less praise worthy than the
>other. Both are harmless and both have their benefits even if said benefits
>are not immediately apparent to people who do not indulge in one particular
>type of fantasy.
>
>> Live and let live, but it is somewhat amusing. Most likely harmless,
>> but to me amusing.
>
>And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
>has regarding cyclists.
SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to have
opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How does
this make any kind of sense?
Zoot Katz
May 16th 05, 06:35 PM
Mon, 16 May 2005 16:14:04 +0200,
>, Elisa Francesca Roselli
> wrote:
>Zoot Katz a écrit :
>
>> True enough.
>> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
>> LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
>
>Please, sir, what's a goober?
>
Not the word I'd have chosen. I just used it to lessen the chance of
confusing some participants in this discussion.
A goober is like a cracker. IOW just another yokel.
If or when I think of them at all, I'll usually refer to those
pathetically arrested individuals as dweebs and be done with 'em.
--
zk
Zoot Katz
May 16th 05, 07:12 PM
Mon, 16 May 2005 12:38:04 -0400,
>,
wrote:
>>But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
>>LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
>
>Anyone over the age of say, 12, who runs dresses like a sci-fi
>character or medieval warrior,in my book + goober.
My book makes them out to be dweebs.
I've never once fantasised about bicycle racing. When I was a kid I'd
sometimes do a running commentary about the baseball or hockey we were
playing. We'd pretend to be our sports heros. Before the time I
started driving at sixteen I'd outgrown all that so never thought of
myself racing at Le Mans or Sebring.
--
zk
Peter Cole
May 16th 05, 09:19 PM
Zoot Katz wrote:
> Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, >,
> William McHale > wrote:
>
>
>>Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
>>being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage ;)) so these people
>>dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks
>
>
> True enough.
> But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
> LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.
I don't know, I love Halloween, I like the idea of a lot of adults
running around in costumes, I think the world needs more goobers and
more cyclists. I may not be a goober, but I'll defend to the death your
right to be one!
William McHale
May 16th 05, 09:30 PM
wrote:
>>
>>And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
>>has regarding cyclists.
> SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to have
> opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How does
> this make any kind of sense?
Its a general position that anyone should take. If you don't want to be
labled as social misfit and outcast then you shouldn't lable other people
either. I suppose its possible that you want to embrace the idea that you
are a social misfit and outcast.
--
Bill
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:30:24 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
wrote:
>>>
>>>And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
>>>has regarding cyclists.
>
>> SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to have
>> opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How does
>> this make any kind of sense?
>
>Its a general position that anyone should take. If you don't want to be
>labled as social misfit and outcast then you shouldn't lable other people
>either. I suppose its possible that you want to embrace the idea that you
>are a social misfit and outcast.
Call it labeling if you want, that's just my take on it and you'll
just have to accept it.
Zoot Katz
May 17th 05, 01:18 AM
Mon, 16 May 2005 16:19:11 -0400, >,
Peter Cole > wrote:
>I don't know, I love Halloween, I like the idea of a lot of adults
>running around in costumes, I think the world needs more goobers and
>more cyclists. I may not be a goober, but I'll defend to the death your
>right to be one!
I too enjoy Halloween but I don't think of its participants as dweebs,
goobers or even pagans.
The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
Nor do I care much about the geek culture associated with D&D, Star
Trek or LOTR. I'm even hard on my game playing friend and spare no
quarter when openly rebuking their pointless pastimes. They've learned
to not broach the subject knowing I've no interest in gaming.
As Marlene pointed out, they mostly seem to be pasty faced fluffy
basement dwellers so I don't givafuk what they think about my
veloraptor. The Dinosaurs Against Fossil Fuels is a
political/ecological statement. I know I'm not a dinosaur or a mimic.
--
zk
Tom Keats
May 17th 05, 04:56 AM
In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> Mon, 16 May 2005 16:19:11 -0400, >,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>>I don't know, I love Halloween, I like the idea of a lot of adults
>>running around in costumes, I think the world needs more goobers and
>>more cyclists. I may not be a goober, but I'll defend to the death your
>>right to be one!
>
> I too enjoy Halloween but I don't think of its participants as dweebs,
> goobers or even pagans.
>
> The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
> dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
The ultimate extreme of that is the Elvis impersonators.
I gather even the other rock star tribute artists can't
stand 'em because they're always 'on', even when they're
not performing.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Peter Cole
May 17th 05, 12:31 PM
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article >,
> Zoot Katz > writes:
>>The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
>>dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
>
>
> The ultimate extreme of that is the Elvis impersonators.
> I gather even the other rock star tribute artists can't
> stand 'em because they're always 'on', even when they're
> not performing.
I think the world would be a much poorer place without Elvis impersonators.
Olebiker
May 17th 05, 03:52 PM
>A goober is like a cracker. IOW just another yokel.
The meaning of "cracker" varies with the person using the term. In
Georgia and North Florida a white man might refer to himself as a
cracker, meaning that he is a native Southerner (or Southron) of a
decidedly rural bent. Some segments of society use the term as a
racial epithet.
If I recall correctly, there was a minor league baseball team in
Atlanta that called itself the Georgia Crackers.
RonSonic
May 17th 05, 03:53 PM
On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:31:25 -0400, Peter Cole > wrote:
>Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Zoot Katz > writes:
>
>>>The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
>>>dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
>>
>>
>> The ultimate extreme of that is the Elvis impersonators.
>> I gather even the other rock star tribute artists can't
>> stand 'em because they're always 'on', even when they're
>> not performing.
>
>I think the world would be a much poorer place without Elvis impersonators.
The best are the Elvis conventions. That way they're all in the same place, and
it is a place I am not.
Worse than mimes. True, both are necessary to a balanced universe. Same with
stinging jellyfish, best in a place I am not.
Ron
RonSonic
May 17th 05, 03:55 PM
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:47:55 -0400, wrote:
>On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:30:24 GMT, William McHale
> wrote:
>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
>>>>has regarding cyclists.
>>
>>> SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to have
>>> opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How does
>>> this make any kind of sense?
>>
>>Its a general position that anyone should take. If you don't want to be
>>labled as social misfit and outcast then you shouldn't lable other people
>>either. I suppose its possible that you want to embrace the idea that you
>>are a social misfit and outcast.
>
>Call it labeling if you want, that's just my take on it and you'll
>just have to accept it.
Huh? No, nobody has to accept it. They can reject it just as vigorously as you
reject dress up geeks or reinactors or whoever the hell it was you were griping
about.
Ron
William McHale
May 17th 05, 04:03 PM
Zoot Katz > wrote:
> Mon, 16 May 2005 16:19:11 -0400, >,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
>>I don't know, I love Halloween, I like the idea of a lot of adults
>>running around in costumes, I think the world needs more goobers and
>>more cyclists. I may not be a goober, but I'll defend to the death your
>>right to be one!
> I too enjoy Halloween but I don't think of its participants as dweebs,
> goobers or even pagans.
> The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
> dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
Well in that case, I hope don't wear any cycling team jeresy's or ever
imagine while you are finishing up a ride that you have just won the
Tour de France otherwise you are doing the exact same thing as the
guys who go to fantasy camps.
> Nor do I care much about the geek culture associated with D&D, Star
> Trek or LOTR. I'm even hard on my game playing friend and spare no
> quarter when openly rebuking their pointless pastimes. They've learned
> to not broach the subject knowing I've no interest in gaming.
No one is asking you to care about geek culture, however in general a
person shouldn't be derisive of other people's pastimes and passions. You
may see no point in them but I assure you the people who participate in them
do. And frankly any "friend" of mine who started dissing any of my
activities would quickly be labled an a** and would not be in the position
to call themselves my friend any longer.
> As Marlene pointed out, they mostly seem to be pasty faced fluffy
> basement dwellers so I don't givafuk what they think about my
> veloraptor. The Dinosaurs Against Fossil Fuels is a
> political/ecological statement. I know I'm not a dinosaur or a mimic.
Well I am glad you don't care because most of them probably don't even think
of you at all.
--
Bill
Bill Sornson
May 17th 05, 05:18 PM
RonSonic wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:47:55 -0400, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:30:24 GMT, William McHale
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general
>>>>> population has regarding cyclists.
>>>
>>>> SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to
>>>> have opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How
>>>> does this make any kind of sense?
>>>
>>> Its a general position that anyone should take. If you don't want
>>> to be labled as social misfit and outcast then you shouldn't lable
>>> other people either. I suppose its possible that you want to
>>> embrace the idea that you are a social misfit and outcast.
>>
>> Call it labeling if you want, that's just my take on it and you'll
>> just have to accept it.
>
> Huh? No, nobody has to accept it. They can reject it just as
> vigorously as you reject dress up geeks or reinactors or whoever the
> hell it was you were griping about.
I'd guess that no one KIDS (makes good-natured fun of) geeks and nerds and
dweebs than they do themselves.
The difference is in the spirit of the derision; in this case it was a tad
mean and judgmental (IIRC -- long expired).
Not a huge deal.
Helmeted Hitler Advises Nazis to Grease Pedal Tapers; film at 11...
Zoot Katz
May 17th 05, 06:12 PM
17 May 2005 07:52:40 -0700,
om>,
"Olebiker" > wrote:
>>A goober is like a cracker. IOW just another yokel.
>
>The meaning of "cracker" varies with the person using the term. In
>Georgia and North Florida a white man might refer to himself as a
>cracker, meaning that he is a native Southerner (or Southron) of a
>decidedly rural bent.
IOW, a goober or yokel unless you reserve yokel for more northern
goobers. Crackers are definitely southern goobers.
--
zk
Zoot Katz
May 17th 05, 06:12 PM
Tue, 17 May 2005 15:03:15 GMT, >,
William McHale > wrote:
>> The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
>> dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
>
>Well in that case, I hope don't wear any cycling team jeresy's or ever
>imagine while you are finishing up a ride that you have just won the
>Tour de France otherwise you are doing the exact same thing as the
>guys who go to fantasy camps.
I don't even own any team kit. I do wear jerseys, shorts, shoes and
gloves but never ride thinking I'm somebody else in a place I'm not.
I outgrew that before age 12. The dweebs haven't yet.
--
zk
William McHale
May 17th 05, 06:44 PM
Zoot Katz > wrote:
> Tue, 17 May 2005 15:03:15 GMT, >,
> William McHale > wrote:
>>> The American Civil War enactors and Wild West posers I do think of as
>>> dweebs along with the sports team "fantasy camps"
>>
>>Well in that case, I hope don't wear any cycling team jeresy's or ever
>>imagine while you are finishing up a ride that you have just won the
>>Tour de France otherwise you are doing the exact same thing as the
>>guys who go to fantasy camps.
> I don't even own any team kit. I do wear jerseys, shorts, shoes and
> gloves but never ride thinking I'm somebody else in a place I'm not.
> I outgrew that before age 12. The dweebs haven't yet.
Just keep in mind that in general it is those people with an interiour
fantasy life, the ones who can dream about what might have been who are the
people that drive culture. It is the dweebs who are in large part responsible
for arts and literature, even for a fair bit of engineering. You might
consider them dweebs; personally I wouldn't want to live in a world without
them.
--
Bill
On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:18:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> wrote:
>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:47:55 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:30:24 GMT, William McHale
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general
>>>>>> population has regarding cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>> SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to
>>>>> have opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How
>>>>> does this make any kind of sense?
>>>>
>>>> Its a general position that anyone should take. If you don't want
>>>> to be labled as social misfit and outcast then you shouldn't lable
>>>> other people either. I suppose its possible that you want to
>>>> embrace the idea that you are a social misfit and outcast.
>>>
>>> Call it labeling if you want, that's just my take on it and you'll
>>> just have to accept it.
>>
>> Huh? No, nobody has to accept it. They can reject it just as
>> vigorously as you reject dress up geeks or reinactors or whoever the
>> hell it was you were griping about.
>
>I'd guess that no one KIDS (makes good-natured fun of) geeks and nerds and
>dweebs than they do themselves.
>
>The difference is in the spirit of the derision; in this case it was a tad
>mean and judgmental (IIRC -- long expired).
>
>Not a huge deal.
>
>Helmeted Hitler Advises Nazis to Grease Pedal Tapers; film at 11...
>
hey, let's move on to something else as a diversion. Did you all know
that I'm an atheist and don't believe there is a god?
Bill Sornson
May 17th 05, 07:35 PM
wrote:
> hey, let's move on to something else as a diversion. Did you all know
> that I'm an atheist and don't believe there is a god?
{Far away gaze} Gee, remember when we were just dissing LOTR geeks?
Nostalgic Bill
1oki
May 17th 05, 07:36 PM
> wrote in message
...
> hey, let's move on to something else as a diversion. Did you all know
> that I'm an atheist and don't believe there is a god?
Kewl! Being an atheist that is.
Unless you count following the way of the bike as religion.
--
'To you I'm an atheist.
to god I'm a member
of the loyal opposition.' -woody allen
Tom Keats
May 17th 05, 08:29 PM
In article >,
William McHale > writes:
> Just keep in mind that in general it is those people with an interiour
> fantasy life, the ones who can dream about what might have been who are the
> people that drive culture. It is the dweebs who are in large part responsible
> for arts and literature, even for a fair bit of engineering. You might
> consider them dweebs; personally I wouldn't want to live in a world without
> them.
I wonder how different the world would be
without morris dancing.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Just zis Guy, you know?
May 17th 05, 09:15 PM
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:29:41 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote in message >:
>I wonder how different the world would be
>without morris dancing.
Morris who?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Zoot Katz
May 17th 05, 09:17 PM
Tue, 17 May 2005 17:44:24 GMT, >,
William McHale > wrote:
>> I don't even own any team kit. I do wear jerseys, shorts, shoes and
>> gloves but never ride thinking I'm somebody else in a place I'm not.
>> I outgrew that before age 12. The dweebs haven't yet.
>
>Just keep in mind that in general it is those people with an interiour
>fantasy life, the ones who can dream about what might have been who are the
>people that drive culture. It is the dweebs who are in large part responsible
>for arts and literature, even for a fair bit of engineering. You might
>consider them dweebs; personally I wouldn't want to live in a world without
>them.
Get back to reality and stick to the point.
Neither you nor I are going to become great artists by dressing up
like Salvador Dali. You aren't going to re-invent quantum physics
simply because you might mimic Einstein's idiosyncrasies. I'll never
design a rocket just by carrying a slide rule and pocket protector.
I might compose an opera but not by pretending to be Mozart.
--
zk
William McHale
May 17th 05, 09:28 PM
Zoot Katz > wrote:
> Tue, 17 May 2005 17:44:24 GMT, >,
> William McHale > wrote:
>>> I don't even own any team kit. I do wear jerseys, shorts, shoes and
>>> gloves but never ride thinking I'm somebody else in a place I'm not.
>>> I outgrew that before age 12. The dweebs haven't yet.
>>
>>Just keep in mind that in general it is those people with an interiour
>>fantasy life, the ones who can dream about what might have been who are the
>>people that drive culture. It is the dweebs who are in large part responsible
>>for arts and literature, even for a fair bit of engineering. You might
>>consider them dweebs; personally I wouldn't want to live in a world without
>>them.
> Get back to reality and stick to the point.
> Neither you nor I are going to become great artists by dressing up
> like Salvador Dali. You aren't going to re-invent quantum physics
> simply because you might mimic Einstein's idiosyncrasies. I'll never
> design a rocket just by carrying a slide rule and pocket protector.
> I might compose an opera but not by pretending to be Mozart.
No I am not going to do those things, but there is no telling what I will do
if I let my imagination run free. Those who are worried that others will
think they are dweebs or goobers are not the ones who become the Einsteins
or the Salvador Dali.
--
Bill
On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:42:26 GMT, Mark Mitchell
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Using the term goober and claiming that it is what gets them out of
>>>> their parent's basement is not a sign of tolerance. Its painting them
>>>> as being stereotypically non-functional people. As far as the the
>>>> original poster knows these people might have careers, own their own
>>>> homes and have families to go home to, just like most bike riders.
>>>> Remember that many Americans view the original poster viewed them.
>>>
>>>Actually, I would wager that many of those folks probably make fairly
>>>hefty money. Have you ever priced chainmail? It's not mass-produced.
>>>All hand-made by serious craftsmen who have put a lot of time and effort
>>>into learning how.
>>>
>>>The same holds true for any kind of (modern) medieval armor. Hell,
>>>whatever they were using that was made of metal costs the world.
>>>
>>>The textiles in my experience are made at home, from relatively
>>>inexpensive materials.
>>>
>>>Bottom line, I would be willing to bet that people who are seriously into
>>>medieval history re-enactments have a hobby that's *far* more expensive
>>>than the vast majority of cyclists.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>
>> Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
>> expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's how
>> they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it had to be
>> seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.
>
>I mentioned the financial outlay to respond to your characterization of
>no life losers living in their parents' basement.
>
>And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
>not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly tolerant'.
>
>What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
>their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
>not.
>
>Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
>stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
>own.
>
>Mark
So then, to each his own should apply to me as well. If that's my take
on it, then so be it. You don't have to agree or approve. I didn't
compare it to cocaine addiction. I meant in terms of money- being
expensive doesn't make an activity necessarily better. In fact, i
think it's more like a cult, judging from the reactions I get. BUt
like you said, to each their own.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.