Water, water, and more.

[Bill Baka]

For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.

Take a look.

http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg

Bill (Way out of the box) Baka

[Mike Latondresse]

Bill Baka > wrote in
:

> For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
> project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
> attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
> bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
> rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
> have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
> embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
> 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>
> Take a look.
>
> http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>
> Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>
Bill these will bounce out the minute you hit a unpaved road...trust
me.

[Bill Baka]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
>>project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
>>attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
>>bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
>>rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
>>have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
>>embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
>>1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>
>>Take a look.
>>
>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>
>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>
>
> Bill these will bounce out the minute you hit a unpaved road...trust
> me.

That is why I am starting to buy oversized diameter bottles that I have
to stop and wedge in. I went flying into a bit of washboard gravel road
a few weeks back and before I got 50 feet into it the vertical holder
had ejected it's bottle. The road was nasty enough that it didn't bother
me to have to stop and go back for it. The angled riser bar has a tight
fit and the one on the left fork is a serious wedge fit that I need two
hands to get in or out. That limits drinking while riding but if I can
find enough of these containers or a way to bungee them in I will be
happy. It turns out that the best bottle was picked up for a dime at a
local garage sale and I can't find the ones I want at either LBS or
Wally world.
Bill Baka

[Ken]

"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
> For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
> here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
> forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
> the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
> be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
> gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
> front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>
> Take a look.
>
> http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>
> Bill (Way out of the box) Baka

While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!

Ken

[Michael]

Bill Baka wrote:
>
> For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
> here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
> forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
> the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
> be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
> gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
> front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>
> Take a look.
>
> http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>
> Bill (Way out of the box) Baka


Where are the Camelback and beer hat?

Michael "max hydration" C.

[Bill Baka]

Ken wrote:
> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>
>>Take a look.
>>
>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>
>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>
>
> While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
> need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!
>
> Ken
>
I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items I
might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really breaks
on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if I can't fix
it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the night. That's what I
get for going so far off the beaten path, no path and no cell phone
coverage, and sure no people walking by to help.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Michael wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>
>>Take a look.
>>
>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>
>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>
>
>
> Where are the Camelback and beer hat?
>
> Michael "max hydration" C.

Camelback has been replaced by a kids book back pack for tools and food
but cold beer might ride nicely in there. I tried it in a water bottle
once and got about (maybe) 2 blocks from the house when the bottle blew
it's lid and most of the brew. Too much vibration even on good pavement.
Bill Baka

[Ken]

"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
> Ken wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>
>>>Take a look.
>>>
>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>
>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>
>>
>> While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
>> need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!
>>
>> Ken
>>
> I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items I might
> need on a long ride into the outback. If something really breaks on the
> bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if I can't fix it on the
> spot I may want enough food to spend the night. That's what I get for
> going so far off the beaten path, no path and no cell phone coverage, and
> sure no people walking by to help.
> Bill Baka

Seems like you might need to invest in a rack and some sort of trunk type
bag for the back end of that thing.

Ken

[Mike Latondresse]

Bill Baka > wrote in
:

> Ken wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
>>>project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
>>>attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
>>>bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
>>>rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
>>>have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
>>>embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
>>>1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>
>>>Take a look.
>>>
>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>
>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>
>>
>> While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I
>> think if I need to carry that much water I would try a
>> sippy-sack!
>>
>> Ken
>>
> I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items
> I might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really
> breaks on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if
> I can't fix it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the
> night. That's what I get for going so far off the beaten path, no
> path and no cell phone coverage, and sure no people walking by to
> help. Bill Baka
>

Wait a minute Bill I thought all your rides were no more than 30
minutes away from home and you just kept doing laps

[Ken]

"Mike Latondresse" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Baka > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ken wrote:
>>> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
>>>>project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
>>>>attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
>>>>bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
>>>>rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
>>>>have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
>>>>embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
>>>>1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>>
>>>
>>> While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I
>>> think if I need to carry that much water I would try a
>>> sippy-sack!
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>> I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items
>> I might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really
>> breaks on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if
>> I can't fix it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the
>> night. That's what I get for going so far off the beaten path, no
>> path and no cell phone coverage, and sure no people walking by to
>> help. Bill Baka
>>
>
> Wait a minute Bill I thought all your rides were no more than 30
> minutes away from home and you just kept doing laps

No you got it confused! He does do laps sometimes (so do I works good) but
other times he goes for century rides out by the air force base.. I looked
it up it is pretty far out there. Not much around.

Ken

[Bill Baka]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
>>>>project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
>>>>attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
>>>>bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
>>>>rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
>>>>have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
>>>>embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
>>>>1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>>
>>>
>>>While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I
>>>think if I need to carry that much water I would try a
>>>sippy-sack!
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>
>>I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items
>>I might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really
>>breaks on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if
>>I can't fix it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the
>>night. That's what I get for going so far off the beaten path, no
>>path and no cell phone coverage, and sure no people walking by to
>>help. Bill Baka
>>
>
>
> Wait a minute Bill I thought all your rides were no more than 30
> minutes away from home and you just kept doing laps

Not quite. Those may be 90% of the riding I do but when I decide to go
somewhere I go far out away from civilization. Rednecks carrying
shotguns that I see in the off hunting season don't qualify, so I
wouldn't approach a poacher with a gun and ask for help. My 'laps' are
merely some of the measured distances around farm fields around here.
They are either 6 miles or 12, and the out to and back is right at 25
with a small town at the end of that one. The 25 mile jaunt is the only
one with anything resembling a store, the rest are up in the woods.
There is no city/suburb situation up here so it is either motoring
through town with all the lights or out in the country.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but look on the map and you will see very few
towns and if you do some of those are ghost towns with barely a trace of
decomposed buildings left.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Ken wrote:
> "Mike Latondresse" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bill Baka > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose
>>>>>project here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be
>>>>>attached to the forks in front and I am thing about one below the
>>>>>bottom tube. next on the list is bottles on the down tubes on the
>>>>>rear. The left one should be easy (I hope) and the right one may
>>>>>have a clearance problem with the gears and such. Would you
>>>>>embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the front knobby for a
>>>>>1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take a look.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I
>>>>think if I need to carry that much water I would try a
>>>>sippy-sack!
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items
>>>I might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really
>>>breaks on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if
>>>I can't fix it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the
>>>night. That's what I get for going so far off the beaten path, no
>>>path and no cell phone coverage, and sure no people walking by to
>>>help. Bill Baka
>>>
>>
>>Wait a minute Bill I thought all your rides were no more than 30
>>minutes away from home and you just kept doing laps
>
>
> No you got it confused! He does do laps sometimes (so do I works good) but
> other times he goes for century rides out by the air force base.. I looked
> it up it is pretty far out there. Not much around.
>
> Ken
>
>
Thanks Ken,
The reason there is nothing on the East side of Beale AFB is that it
used to be the target zone of the gunnery range for Beale during the war
and there is a lot of unexploded ordinance out there. Rather than try to
clean up 113,000 acres of touchy shells for development they just
cleared a path for some service vehicles and apparently allow the
hunters to take their chances out there. Nobody dares trying to use a
back hoe in that area so I don't see much chance for towns or stores
popping up any time soon. The bridges I have pictures of are concrete or
wood and are from before 1940. Some have what looks like blast damage
but I didn't take pictures of them for that purpose since I didn't think
I would be here explaining the meaning of my 'outback'. It is some of a
very small amount of land in California that is not developed, but for a
good reason.
Bill Baka

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:14 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>
>>>Take a look.
>>>
>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>
>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>
>>
>> While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
>> need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items I
>might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really breaks
>on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if I can't fix
>it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the night. That's what I
>get for going so far off the beaten path, no path and no cell phone
>coverage, and sure no people walking by to help.


Most of the guys using a camelbak carry tools, parts, tubes, lunch, first aid
kit and like that.

Under the down tube is a fairly traditional bottle location.

Ron

[Bill Baka]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:14 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>>>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>>
>>>>Take a look.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>>
>>>
>>>While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
>>>need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>
>>I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items I
>>might need on a long ride into the outback. If something really breaks
>>on the bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if I can't fix
>>it on the spot I may want enough food to spend the night. That's what I
>>get for going so far off the beaten path, no path and no cell phone
>>coverage, and sure no people walking by to help.
>
>
>
> Most of the guys using a camelbak carry tools, parts, tubes, lunch, first aid
> kit and like that.
>
> Under the down tube is a fairly traditional bottle location.
>
> Ron

Yeah,
That might work since the bottle holders on the fork and frame stems do
kind of ruin any aerodynamics I might have on a mountain bike. I took my
grandson (hyperactive) on a 25 mile +/- and while he was always yelling
"Grandpa, slow down." he did manage to drink 2 of my 24 Oz. water
bottles leaving me with only one. He was tired after we got back but
still hyperactive, OT here, but I was wondering if serious exercise
might make some kids less hyperactive without meds. For my water bottles
it is only going to get more crowded on my bike as I think of new places
to put bottles. I really don't like the weight of tools, food, and water
on my back so the more the bike carries the better of I am. I just wish
I could find some jumbo bottles, like maybe full liters (34 Oz.?) that
would fit snugly into my holders and not bounce out on every good impact.
Still thinking about new places to put water. I do need all I can get
since I have grandkids riding with me (only up to 25 miles, then the
whining begins) and the kids drink a remarkable amount of water, juice,
V-8, Gatorade or whatever. I am the pack mule on these rides.
Bill Baka

[Ken]

"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
> RonSonic wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:14 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>>>>>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>>>>>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>>>>>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>>>>>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with
>>>>>the
>>>>>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>>>>>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take a look.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While you might be able to jury rig some tie-down stoppers, I think if I
>>>>need to carry that much water I would try a sippy-sack!
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can't. Impractical. I carry tools, tubes, food, and other items I might
>>>need on a long ride into the outback. If something really breaks on the
>>>bike I want more than just a tire patch kit, and if I can't fix it on the
>>>spot I may want enough food to spend the night. That's what I get for
>>>going so far off the beaten path, no path and no cell phone coverage, and
>>>sure no people walking by to help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of the guys using a camelbak carry tools, parts, tubes, lunch, first
>> aid
>> kit and like that.
>>
>> Under the down tube is a fairly traditional bottle location.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Yeah,
> That might work since the bottle holders on the fork and frame stems do
> kind of ruin any aerodynamics I might have on a mountain bike. I took my
> grandson (hyperactive) on a 25 mile +/- and while he was always yelling
> "Grandpa, slow down." he did manage to drink 2 of my 24 Oz. water bottles
> leaving me with only one. He was tired after we got back but still
> hyperactive, OT here, but I was wondering if serious exercise might make
> some kids less hyperactive without meds. For my water bottles it is only
> going to get more crowded on my bike as I think of new places to put
> bottles. I really don't like the weight of tools, food, and water on my
> back so the more the bike carries the better of I am. I just wish I could
> find some jumbo bottles, like maybe full liters (34 Oz.?) that would fit
> snugly into my holders and not bounce out on every good impact.
> Still thinking about new places to put water. I do need all I can get
> since I have grandkids riding with me (only up to 25 miles, then the
> whining begins) and the kids drink a remarkable amount of water, juice,
> V-8, Gatorade or whatever. I am the pack mule on these rides.
> Bill Baka

Well if it was me I would make them carry some stuff! Even if they can only
carry 1 bottle!

Ken

[Ken]

"Bill Baka" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Ken,
> The reason there is nothing on the East side of Beale AFB is that it used
> to be the target zone of the gunnery range for Beale during the war and
> there is a lot of unexploded ordinance out there. Rather than try to clean
> up 113,000 acres of touchy shells for development they just cleared a path
> for some service vehicles and apparently allow the hunters to take their
> chances out there. Nobody dares trying to use a back hoe in that area so I
> don't see much chance for towns or stores popping up any time soon. The
> bridges I have pictures of are concrete or wood and are from before 1940.
> Some have what looks like blast damage but I didn't take pictures of them
> for that purpose since I didn't think I would be here explaining the
> meaning of my 'outback'. It is some of a very small amount of land in
> California that is not developed, but for a good reason.
> Bill Baka

Yeah, and I think I read at one time they used that base as the home for the
SR-71 BlackBirds. So who knows what else they got flying around out there.
Maybe some Predators or Global-Hawks. Yeah I can't see too much devolopment
happening out that way. It would cost way too much to clean up all that
unexploded stuff!

Ken

[Bill Baka]

Ken wrote:
>>Yeah,
>>That might work since the bottle holders on the fork and frame stems do
>>kind of ruin any aerodynamics I might have on a mountain bike. I took my
>>grandson (hyperactive) on a 25 mile +/- and while he was always yelling
>>"Grandpa, slow down." he did manage to drink 2 of my 24 Oz. water bottles
>>leaving me with only one. He was tired after we got back but still
>>hyperactive, OT here, but I was wondering if serious exercise might make
>>some kids less hyperactive without meds. For my water bottles it is only
>>going to get more crowded on my bike as I think of new places to put
>>bottles. I really don't like the weight of tools, food, and water on my
>>back so the more the bike carries the better of I am. I just wish I could
>>find some jumbo bottles, like maybe full liters (34 Oz.?) that would fit
>>snugly into my holders and not bounce out on every good impact.
>>Still thinking about new places to put water. I do need all I can get
>>since I have grandkids riding with me (only up to 25 miles, then the
>>whining begins) and the kids drink a remarkable amount of water, juice,
>>V-8, Gatorade or whatever. I am the pack mule on these rides.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> Well if it was me I would make them carry some stuff! Even if they can only
> carry 1 bottle!
>
> Ken
>
>
I am trying to get their parents (not me) to put out the money for
bottle holders and good quality bottles, larger than 24 Oz. if possible.
Most of their bikes, even the Wal-mart Huffys and el-cheapo bikes have
screws for at least one bottle, and I can rig a second with some car
type heater hose clamps. The kids 7 to 17 so far seem to drink a lot
more water than me but also have to make a lot more pit stops, err,
nature breaks than I do. My kidneys slow down on long hot rides but the
kids seem to go into overdrive unless they are over hydrating due to the
psychological factor of riding in 80-100+ summer heat. I drink about 3
cups of coffee and one glass of Orange Juice before starting a ride and
still never seem to over hydrate. On my solo rides I find myself
sweating buckets and plenty of water sloshing around inside of me but
not getting absorbed. Maybe I need to drink something with more salt??
Bill (non doctor) Baka

[gds]

Bill Baka wrote:
I drink about 3
> cups of coffee and one glass of Orange Juice before starting a ride
and
> still never seem to over hydrate.

Over hydration, while covered in the press is - I think- not all that
common.
Riding in the desert it is hard to imagine. I'll often drink over one
quart per hour on a ride and still finish 4 lbs. lighter (ride of 40-50
miles) which means I'm "down" about a half gallon.

BTW coffee is a mild diuretic and thus a not very efficient hydrator.

[dgk]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:00:14 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:

>For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>here is a picture of it so far. Water bottles can be attached to the
>forks in front and I am thing about one below the bottom tube. next on
>the list is bottles on the down tubes on the rear. The left one should
>be easy (I hope) and the right one may have a clearance problem with the
>gears and such. Would you embarass a Trek this way? I did trade in the
>front knobby for a 1.75" street type tire and it is a lot quieter now.
>
>Take a look.
>
>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>
>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka

That reminds me of one of the biggest dangers in BikeNY. Folks with
**** for brains (and I'm really trying to be nice) shove bottled water
into their cages, but they are too small and somewhere along the route
they fall out. Very bright.

The first time I rode BNY I took a water bottle, but it was one that
fit. That was the last time I took water. There are rest stops every
10 miles or so and they give out water bottles. So you put them in a
pack or something. Not a cage that they don't fit. Or you just drink
them at the rest stop and, well, hold your water.

We only stopped at one rest stop. It's May in NYC so the temperature
is not going to be over 70. How much water does anyone need for this?

You, on the other hand, are going to need water. Hmm. Perhaps you can
put a water bottle IN the frame. Quick, why can't you park your bike
anywhere near the US Open Tennis Championship in Flushing Meadows
Corona Park? Because security is afraid that someone will fit
explosives into the bike frame. So, there must be plenty of room for
water.

Just attach a tube to the bottom of the frame, down by the cranks, and
there you have it. The world's first camel frame.

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 23 May 2005 15:21:21 -0400,
>, dgk
> wrote:

>Quick, why can't you park your bike
>anywhere near the US Open Tennis Championship in Flushing Meadows
>Corona Park? Because security is afraid that someone will fit
>explosives into the bike frame.

Your country makes me puke.
--
zk

[Cheto]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...

> Your country makes me puke.

The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
few security guards at a tennis game?

Cheto

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 23 May 2005 13:41:06 -0700, >,
"Cheto" > wrote:

>> Your country makes me puke.
>
>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
>few security guards at a tennis game?

Yes.

It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
simply because they're different.

The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
administration.
--
zk

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:18:58 -0700, Zoot Katz > wrote:

>Mon, 23 May 2005 13:41:06 -0700, >,
>"Cheto" > wrote:
>
>>> Your country makes me puke.
>>
>>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
>>few security guards at a tennis game?
>
>Yes.
>
>It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
>the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
>simply because they're different.

Oh, go **** your bigoted arrogant self.

>The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
>your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
>administration.

Criticizing things you don't know about is not the sign of healthy mental
activity. And spouting somebody's cornball poltical cliche isn't justification
for your bigotry.

Ron

[alex]

hmm.. I think you should avoid the trolls :)

[Rich]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
> your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
> administration.

Actually, that applies to only 51% of the country.

And they're chicken-hawks, actually. (to chicken to serve, but hawkish)

[Bill Sornson]

alex wrote:
> hmm.. I think you should avoid the trolls :)

Hmmm. I think you should learn to quote.

:-D

[alex]

Nah, none of it was worth repeating :)

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 24 May 2005 01:28:19 GMT,
>, RonSonic
> wrote:

>>>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
>>>few security guards at a tennis game?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
>>the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
>>simply because they're different.
>
>Oh, go **** your bigoted arrogant self.
>
It wasn't the decision of a few armed paranoid drop outs in the
parking lot. It's policy delivered from on high. They'll cite
"liability issues" inferring that bicycles are inherently unsafe.

Where's the logic that denies bicycle parking for fear it's carrying
explosives while permitting motor vehicles that clearly carry many
times more explosive force right in the fuel tank?

It's a way of casting bicyclists as terrorists and classifying them
undesirable persons while automobilists kill willy nilly with
impunity. Motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of death
among healthy males in their prime years. Dangerous driving is
constantly glorified in the media.

How many bike bombs have been detonated in Baghdad? How many suicide
cyclists would it take to bring down a stadium? Get serious.

It's a profile characterisation and stereotyping played out as
discrimination against a particular transportation mode. It's an
attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists.

>>The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
>>your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
>>administration.
>
>Criticizing things you don't know about is not the sign of healthy mental
>activity. And spouting somebody's cornball poltical cliche isn't justification
>for your bigotry.

Are we talking about the known unknowns or the unknown unknowns
everybody knows?
--
zk

[Stephen Harding]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
> the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
> simply because they're different.

Hey Zoot, I heard the other day that <somewhere>, Ontario is now
the largest producer of cars in the world, over-taking Detroit.

*Your* country producing "scuds" by the greenhouse gas full!!!

> The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
> your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
> administration.

Thank God we still have immigration to Canada as an option!


SMH

[dabac]

>
> ...I really don't like the weight of tools, food, and water on my
> back so the more the bike carries the better of I am.

The key to comfortable use of a (heavy)backpack while bicycling is to
make sure it rides low, basically over your hips (lumbar region) rather
than between your shoulder blades. A small backpack probably won't have
long enough shoulder straps to let you do this, but that's easily fixed
through some determination and access to a sewing machine...

Otherwise it's always a compromise when deciding where to carry the
load. For comfort and endurance it's usually better to get a rack and
strap the stuff to the bike, but for manouverability during technically
demanding riding you're usually better off strapping the stuff to your
body instead. I believe it has to do with the proportional weight
increase, adddding 10 pounds to the weight of the bike is a much bigger
difference than the same amount added to your body weight.


--
dabac

[[email protected]]

Bill Baka wrote:
> For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project

<snip>
> Bill (Way out of the box) Baka

Hi Bill,

I've seen triathletes using a single or double bottle holder attached
to the back of the saddle/seat tube. Held the bottles at a 45deg.
angle, leaning back over the rear wheel. Dunno if they're commonly
available.

Otherwise, you can hang one off the bottom of the downtube, below the
existing bottle. You can do it with a couple of jubilee clips if there
aren't any bosses in place.

What I've taken to is putting just the bladder part of a camebak into
my backpack, and clipping the tube to the shoulder strap. That works
fine too, it's convenient, and the water stays cool in the bag.

Regards,

bookieb.

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:50:20 -0700, Zoot Katz > wrote:

>Tue, 24 May 2005 01:28:19 GMT,
>, RonSonic
> wrote:
>
>>>>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
>>>>few security guards at a tennis game?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
>>>the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
>>>simply because they're different.
>>
>>Oh, go **** your bigoted arrogant self.
>>
>It wasn't the decision of a few armed paranoid drop outs in the
>parking lot. It's policy delivered from on high. They'll cite
>"liability issues" inferring that bicycles are inherently unsafe.
>
>Where's the logic that denies bicycle parking for fear it's carrying
>explosives while permitting motor vehicles that clearly carry many
>times more explosive force right in the fuel tank?
>
>It's a way of casting bicyclists as terrorists and classifying them
>undesirable persons while automobilists kill willy nilly with
>impunity. Motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of death
>among healthy males in their prime years. Dangerous driving is
>constantly glorified in the media.
>
>How many bike bombs have been detonated in Baghdad? How many suicide
>cyclists would it take to bring down a stadium? Get serious.
>
>It's a profile characterisation and stereotyping played out as
>discrimination against a particular transportation mode. It's an
>attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists.

No, it is just a venue that is famously self-important and overly impressed with
itself. They would wish us to believe that they are so significant that of
course the terrorists of the world have specifically targetted them.

As for the rest: "attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists"
sheesh. This is just paranoia. I know, the real question in the modern world is
whether we are being paranoid enough. But in this instance you are more than
sufficiently paranoid. In fact, I'd rate your paranoia level as approximately
equivalent to that of a tennis tournament that doesn't permit bicycles on the
grounds. Besides there are no cyclo-commuters going to those games.

>>>The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
>>>your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
>>>administration.
>>
>>Criticizing things you don't know about is not the sign of healthy mental
>>activity. And spouting somebody's cornball poltical cliche isn't justification
>>for your bigotry.
>
> Are we talking about the known unknowns or the unknown unknowns
>everybody knows?

Nah, these are known knowns. I'll let you know when we have to deal with the
known unknowns. The risk of course is ALWAYS the unknown unknowns. And knowing
that we don't know them is the important thing.

Ron

[dgk]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:26:23 GMT, RonSonic >
wrote:

>As for the rest: "attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists"
>sheesh. This is just paranoia. I know, the real question in the modern world is
>whether we are being paranoid enough. But in this instance you are more than
>sufficiently paranoid. In fact, I'd rate your paranoia level as approximately
>equivalent to that of a tennis tournament that doesn't permit bicycles on the
>grounds. Besides there are no cyclo-commuters going to those games.
>

That would be incorrect. I know about the policy because I bike from
my home to the tournament. Quite a few people do. Many folks going to
a tennis tournament actually play the game, unlike all other spectator
sports except for golf. That means that they're in pretty good
condition and might also be biking. (This does not hold true for the
semi-finals and finals, which do tend to be the corporate set).

I'd never thought that I'd be defending a paranoid policy, but one of
the reasons that they are so paranoid is that 9/11 took place just
after the tournament, which wraps around Labor Day weekend. Plus, it
draws internationally so you have a fair number of foreign looking
folks in attendance. Plus, it's in NYC which tends to draw the nuts.

I agree completely with Mr. Zoot's view of our country. We let 19
madmen armed with boxcutters and an airline schedule turn around our
whole way of life. They won. We have a borderline facist government
lying about needing to go to war.

Let me be more exact. Our neocon goverment
(www.newamericancentury.org) used 9/11 to panic the American people
and put into play an agenda of corporate world domination. It is a
playbook straight out of Orwell's 1984. We're being attacked by
Iraqlandia.

[Chalo]

RonSonic wrote:
>
> Zoot Katz > wrote:
> >
> > The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're
> > letting your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a
> > chicken-**** administration.
>
> Criticizing things you don't know about is not the sign of
> healthy mental activity. And spouting somebody's cornball
> poltical cliche isn't justification for your bigotry.

Zoot knows what he's talking about. He repatriated himself to a more
humane country after having had his fill of the one you are in denial
about.

I just took my sweetie to the airport. She wasn't allowed to bring her
mending with her to occupy her time on the plane...

Chalo Colina

[Bill]

gds wrote:

>
> Bill Baka wrote:
> I drink about 3
>> cups of coffee and one glass of Orange Juice before starting a ride
> and
>> still never seem to over hydrate.
>
> Over hydration, while covered in the press is - I think- not all that
> common.
> Riding in the desert it is hard to imagine. I'll often drink over one
> quart per hour on a ride and still finish 4 lbs. lighter (ride of 40-50
> miles) which means I'm "down" about a half gallon.
>
> BTW coffee is a mild diuretic and thus a not very efficient hydrator.
I use the coffee as a waker upper, not a hydrator.
It seems no matter what I drink I come in lighter than what I leave at. It
isn't only the sweat but just the breathing out water as you breath harder
during a ride.
A problem still not solved. I really can't tell how hydrated I am in the
middle of a ride unless I am really dehydrated, then I know.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

dabac wrote:

>
>>
>> ...I really don't like the weight of tools, food, and water on my
>> back so the more the bike carries the better of I am.
>
> The key to comfortable use of a (heavy)backpack while bicycling is to
> make sure it rides low, basically over your hips (lumbar region) rather
> than between your shoulder blades. A small backpack probably won't have
> long enough shoulder straps to let you do this, but that's easily fixed
> through some determination and access to a sewing machine...
>
> Otherwise it's always a compromise when deciding where to carry the
> load. For comfort and endurance it's usually better to get a rack and
> strap the stuff to the bike, but for manouverability during technically
> demanding riding you're usually better off strapping the stuff to your
> body instead. I believe it has to do with the proportional weight
> increase, adddding 10 pounds to the weight of the bike is a much bigger
> difference than the same amount added to your body weight.
>
>
Questionable. I stuffed about 40 pounds of metal (Magnetrons) into my back
pack on Monday to salvage some magnets for my grandson who is into that
kind of stuff. The weight threw me off badly at low speeds with turns but
was not an issue at speed and going straight. I don't know how that would
be with that much extra weight on the bike. Riding back on pavement is not
that 'technical' so I can't say there. What does happen is that the water
bottles have a greater chance of getting thrown clear when I am doing any
serious trail riding and the 15-20 pounds of tools/food/junk in the back
pack doesn't bother me that much.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

dgk wrote:

>>http://www.syix.com/bbaka/bike/water_bike.jpg
>>
>>Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>
> That reminds me of one of the biggest dangers in BikeNY. Folks with
> **** for brains (and I'm really trying to be nice) shove bottled water
> into their cages, but they are too small and somewhere along the route
> they fall out. Very bright.

I already know about that problem but here is the catch, I have 3 bottles,
all supposedly for bikes, and all 3 have a different diameter. One bounces
out a lot and is going real soon, one fits perfect, and one is a real wedge
fit. They were made in 3 different countries so go figure. All are 24 Oz.
>
> The first time I rode BNY I took a water bottle, but it was one that
> fit. That was the last time I took water. There are rest stops every
> 10 miles or so and they give out water bottles. So you put them in a
> pack or something. Not a cage that they don't fit. Or you just drink
> them at the rest stop and, well, hold your water.

At least you have rest stops. The places I ride I have gone over 80 miles
without even a gas station, so I take a lot of water and use a lot of
bushes. It doesn't make sense to be bashful around deer. I do use the
creeks to top up the bottles though, and it seems better than a lot of what
you can buy at the store for a buck a bottle.
>
> We only stopped at one rest stop. It's May in NYC so the temperature
> is not going to be over 70. How much water does anyone need for this?
>
> You, on the other hand, are going to need water. Hmm. Perhaps you can
> put a water bottle IN the frame. Quick, why can't you park your bike
> anywhere near the US Open Tennis Championship in Flushing Meadows
> Corona Park? Because security is afraid that someone will fit
> explosives into the bike frame. So, there must be plenty of room for
> water.

These days, probably. I did find an abandoned Mongoose with an absurdly
large bottom tube, about 2 inches in diameter, that would make a good water
holder, but it's a parts junker, and even if it wasn't, I wouldn't be seen
riding it.
>
> Just attach a tube to the bottom of the frame, down by the cranks, and
> there you have it. The world's first camel frame.

With a little pump so I don't have to sip so hard.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Mon, 23 May 2005 15:21:21 -0400,
> >, dgk
> > wrote:
>
>>Quick, why can't you park your bike
>>anywhere near the US Open Tennis Championship in Flushing Meadows
>>Corona Park? Because security is afraid that someone will fit
>>explosives into the bike frame.
>
> Your country makes me puke.

Hey, we have to live in it, but I didn't vote for the weed.
Bill Baka

I got detained by the Secret Service 2 years ago for taking pictures on one
of my rides around Beale AFB and they called the county sheriff to come and
take me and my bike home. I was on a damned PUBLIC road. Since one of my
neighbors has a scanner I had a welcoming committee when the sheriff pulled
up with me in the front and the bike in the back.
Yup, land of the free, you betcha.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Mon, 23 May 2005 13:41:06 -0700, >,
> "Cheto" > wrote:
>
>>> Your country makes me puke.
>>
>>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of a
>>few security guards at a tennis game?
>
> Yes.
>
> It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
> the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
> simply because they're different.
>
> The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
> your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
> administration.

On that last sentence you are 100% on target. My chances of being killed by
a terrorist are about 0.000% compared to anything else, yet Bush makes it
look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

RonSonic wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:18:58 -0700, Zoot Katz >
> wrote:
>
>>Mon, 23 May 2005 13:41:06 -0700, >,
>>"Cheto" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Your country makes me puke.
>>>
>>>The entire country makes you "puke" because of the paranoid fantasies of
>>>a few security guards at a tennis game?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>It's a merely another symptom of the American epidemic that ignores
>>the real danger of automobiles and focuses on bicycles being a threat
>>simply because they're different.
>
> Oh, go **** your bigoted arrogant self.
>
>>The whole country is in a paranoid defensive mode while you're letting
>>your liberties be ripped from under your noses by a chicken-****
>>administration.
>
> Criticizing things you don't know about is not the sign of healthy mental
> activity. And spouting somebody's cornball poltical cliche isn't
> justification for your bigotry.
>
> Ron

OK, now I am into this. I went down to the Social Security office a few
months back, being as I am a marginal senior at 56, and was frisked by a
guard there, and then cleared to go in. There were about 10 real seniors
over 65-70 and he said he had to check them all. I asked them and they were
none too happy to be paying taxes for a guard to protect 2 (yes, 2)
employees in an office with no money. So terrorists are going to blow up a
Social Security office? Bush and his followers are the real **** for
brains.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

wrote:

>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> For those of you who thought I was kidding about the Mongoose project
>
> <snip>
>> Bill (Way out of the box) Baka
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I've seen triathletes using a single or double bottle holder attached
> to the back of the saddle/seat tube. Held the bottles at a 45deg.
> angle, leaning back over the rear wheel. Dunno if they're commonly
> available.
>
> Otherwise, you can hang one off the bottom of the downtube, below the
> existing bottle. You can do it with a couple of jubilee clips if there
> aren't any bosses in place.
>
> What I've taken to is putting just the bladder part of a camebak into
> my backpack, and clipping the tube to the shoulder strap. That works
> fine too, it's convenient, and the water stays cool in the bag.
>
> Regards,
>
> bookieb.

If it stands a chance of working I will try it. Anyplace that won't bounce
out on my off road short cuts that have some unplanned big bumps.
Thanks,
Bill Baka

[Rich]

Bill wrote:

> Bush makes it
> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.

That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!

[Ken]

"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> gds wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>> I drink about 3
>>> cups of coffee and one glass of Orange Juice before starting a ride
>> and
>>> still never seem to over hydrate.
>>
>> Over hydration, while covered in the press is - I think- not all that
>> common.
>> Riding in the desert it is hard to imagine. I'll often drink over one
>> quart per hour on a ride and still finish 4 lbs. lighter (ride of 40-50
>> miles) which means I'm "down" about a half gallon.
>>
>> BTW coffee is a mild diuretic and thus a not very efficient hydrator.
> I use the coffee as a waker upper, not a hydrator.
> It seems no matter what I drink I come in lighter than what I leave at. It
> isn't only the sweat but just the breathing out water as you breath harder
> during a ride.
> A problem still not solved. I really can't tell how hydrated I am in the
> middle of a ride unless I am really dehydrated, then I know.
> Bill Baka

Well knowing when you are "hydrated" enough is a tough call. Often I find
myself thinking that I am drinking too much water. And other days it feels
like I can't drink enough water to quench my thirst. I just try to listen to
what my body is telling me. The heck with what the "experts" say.

Ken

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 24 May 2005 13:26:23 GMT,
>, RonSonic
> wrote:

>>It's a profile characterisation and stereotyping played out as
>>discrimination against a particular transportation mode. It's an
>>attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists.
>
>No, it is just a venue that is famously self-important and overly impressed with
>itself. They would wish us to believe that they are so significant that of
>course the terrorists of the world have specifically targetted them.
>
With bicycles. . . uh huh.

>As for the rest: "attempt to demonise the bicycle and disparage cyclists"
>sheesh. This is just paranoia. I know, the real question in the modern world is
>whether we are being paranoid enough. But in this instance you are more than
>sufficiently paranoid. In fact, I'd rate your paranoia level as approximately
>equivalent to that of a tennis tournament that doesn't permit bicycles on the
>grounds.

They won't let me on the grounds _because_ I'm riding a bicycle.
That's not paranoia, that's their policy.
Why? What are they really afraid of? The unknown known or what?

>Besides there are no cyclo-commuters going to those games.

Not likely to be any either if they're not permitted to park their
pipe bombs.. . .bicycles.

It stinks and like I said before, it makes me puke.
--
zk

[Stephen Harding]

dgk wrote:

> I agree completely with Mr. Zoot's view of our country. We let 19
> madmen armed with boxcutters and an airline schedule turn around our
> whole way of life. They won. We have a borderline facist government
> lying about needing to go to war.

I suggest you read some history to find out how a fascist government
*really* behaves.

> Let me be more exact. Our neocon goverment
> (www.newamericancentury.org) used 9/11 to panic the American people
> and put into play an agenda of corporate world domination. It is a
> playbook straight out of Orwell's 1984. We're being attacked by
> Iraqlandia.

It's not the neocons and corporations. It's the Jews and Masons that
really run the world!


SMH



SMH

[Bill]

Rich wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>
>> Bush makes it
>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>
> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!

I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to where
a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that don't
voice the point of view.
Bill Baka

[Cheto]

"Bill" > wrote in message
...

> I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
> television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
> business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
> where
> a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that
> don't
> voice the point of view.
> Bill Baka

Why should the taxpayers fund ANY radio station - liberal or conservative -
if it can't make it on its own? If you're that big a fan of NPR, then send
them a check.

Cheto

[Jim Smith]

"Cheto" > writes:

> "Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>> television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>> business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>> where
>> a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that
>> don't
>> voice the point of view.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Why should the taxpayers fund ANY radio station - liberal or conservative -
> if it can't make it on its own? If you're that big a fan of NPR, then send
> them a check.

Oh my, you have it all backwards. Better to ask why so few companies
control so much of the PUBLIC airwaves, and whether or not that is a
good thing.

[Mark Hickey]

Bill > wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Bush makes it
>>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>
>> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>
>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to where
>a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that don't
>voice the point of view.

The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
"vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
field day with it.

Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Jim Smith]

Mark Hickey > writes:

> Bill > wrote:
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bush makes it
>>>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>>
>>> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>>> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>>
>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>>business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to where
>>a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that don't
>>voice the point of view.
>
> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
> field day with it.

Good grief! if you think npr is "annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal"
what would you say about Pacifica? WBAI in particular? Been around
for a long time, but actually, I am not optimistic that you are
familliar with them.

Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.

[Cheto]

"Jim Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Oh my, you have it all backwards. Better to ask why so few companies
> control so much of the PUBLIC airwaves, and whether or not that is a
> good thing.

It is a good thing. Certainly better than the government controlling the
airwaves. Is that what you'd prefer?

Cheto

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:27:23 -0700, >,
"Cheto" > wrote:

>
>> Oh my, you have it all backwards. Better to ask why so few companies
>> control so much of the PUBLIC airwaves, and whether or not that is a
>> good thing.
>
>It is a good thing. Certainly better than the government controlling the
>airwaves. Is that what you'd prefer?
>
Those few fat cats controlling the public airwaves are right wing scum
balls and belong to the same clubs as the scum ball right wingers who
hijacked your beloved constitution along with the rest of your
country. But, you sound entirely satisfied with that situation.
--
zk

[Chalo]

Cheto wrote:
>
> "Jim Smith" > wrote:
> >
> > Oh my, you have it all backwards. Better to ask why so few companies
> > control so much of the PUBLIC airwaves, and whether or not that is a
> > good thing.
>
> It is a good thing. Certainly better than the government controlling the
> airwaves. Is that what you'd prefer?

If you don't think the government controls the airwaves, you must not
have been paying attention to the FCC's armed raids on radio stations
operating in international waters.

You can get a license to broadcast if you have millions or billions of
dollars to devote to getting one. The folks who can afford that sort
of entry cost give us programming that is in many ways worse than
directly government-controlled media.

Public broadcasting has its shortcomings, but it's the best we've got
for as long as most frequencies are sold off to the highest bidder.

Chalo Colina

[Mark Hickey]

Zoot Katz > wrote:

>Thu, 26 May 2005 12:27:23 -0700, >,
>"Cheto" > wrote:
>
>>> Oh my, you have it all backwards. Better to ask why so few companies
>>> control so much of the PUBLIC airwaves, and whether or not that is a
>>> good thing.
>>
>>It is a good thing. Certainly better than the government controlling the
>>airwaves. Is that what you'd prefer?
>>
>Those few fat cats controlling the public airwaves are right wing scum
>balls and belong to the same clubs as the scum ball right wingers who
>hijacked your beloved constitution along with the rest of your
>country. But, you sound entirely satisfied with that situation.

You sound entirely paranoid about the situation. You should do some
research on the ratio of Dems to Reps on the airwaves before
complaining about a falling sky. The numbers ain't even close.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Jim Smith > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > writes:

>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>> field day with it.
>
>Good grief! if you think npr is "annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal"
>what would you say about Pacifica? WBAI in particular? Been around
>for a long time, but actually, I am not optimistic that you are
>familliar with them.

You'd be right... I listen to very little radio - pretty much limited
to a local talk radio station when I'm actually driving somewhere.

>Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.

I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Bill]

Cheto wrote:

>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>> television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his
>> big business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>> where
>> a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs that
>> don't
>> voice the point of view.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Why should the taxpayers fund ANY radio station - liberal or conservative
> -
> if it can't make it on its own? If you're that big a fan of NPR, then
> send them a check.
>
> Cheto

If you are that stupid, send Bush a check.
Bill Baka

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Mark Hickey > writes:
>
> I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
> That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
> imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
> ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
> like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.

I'd think Lyndon LaRouche would be a more appropriate
counterbalance to Rush Limbaugh -- the two ends of the
same wacky stick.

Anyhow, when I hear "public broadcasting", I think more PBS
than NPR. I enjoy shows like Nova and American Experience.
At least they're more mentally stimulating than Growing up
Gotti or Dog the Bounty Hunter.


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

[Bill]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Bill > wrote:
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bush makes it
>>>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>>
>>> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>>> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>>
>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>>business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>>where a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs
>>that don't voice the point of view.
>
> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
> field day with it.
>
> Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

I mainly listen to or watch public media because it is not all about profit
and some stupid shows like fear factor or big brother. The nature and
history specials are good but apparently the present administration thinks
they are painting the 'nature' as being unfairly targeted by the
Republicans. You know, screw the habitat and give us the oil, trees,
whatever. Look what has been happening to the rain forest for the last 30
years or so, and when it's gone it ain't coming back. I think that in the
end, the planet will have the last laugh after a few thousand years of
humans screwing things up and then making themselves extinct. Same effect
as a big impact event 65 million years ago, just a different cause. Think
about it, we are a very small blip on the global time line.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

Jim Smith wrote:

> Mark Hickey > writes:
>
>> Bill > wrote:
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bush makes it
>>>>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>>>
>>>> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>>>> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>>>
>>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>>>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his
>>>big business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>>>where a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs
>>>that don't voice the point of view.
>>
>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>> field day with it.
>
> Good grief! if you think npr is "annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal"
> what would you say about Pacifica? WBAI in particular? Been around
> for a long time, but actually, I am not optimistic that you are
> familliar with them.
>
> Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
> most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
> way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.

Kind of like going from a normal station to Rush Limbaugh, huh?

Sort of ironic, a right winger drug addict with a national audience.
Bill Baka

[Cheto]

"Bill" > wrote in message
...

> If you are that stupid, send Bush a check.

C'mon, Bill. Someone with a 140 IQ and a house full of "color TV's" can do
better than that.

Cheto

[Cheto]

"Jim Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
> most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
> way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.

Most everything else?, like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.

Cheto

[Bill]

Cheto wrote:

>
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> If you are that stupid, send Bush a check.
>
> C'mon, Bill. Someone with a 140 IQ and a house full of "color TV's" can
> do better than that.
>
> Cheto

So you think that justifies a small book sized response with big words?
I did my bit for nature while riding Tuesday, finding a lost turtle on the
road and relocating it to the creek. Anyway, what's the problem with NPR or
PBS? They have always been pretty much on their own and the government has
been happy to have them there as alternatives to the junk programming on
most commercial stations. Just because they are going over to ecology and
questioning the Republicans does not justify cutting funding. What we don't
need is another Rush Limbaugh type program. I can't handle him at lunch
time. Even Paul Harvey, who I have been listening to since I was a kid in
Chicago in the 50's is leaning a bit far to the Republican side, but still
shows a decent respect for some of the real concerns we have.
Book to follow. Someday. Maybe.
Bill Baka

Just to clarify, the TV's just sort of happened, so we have a 32", 27", 2 x
19", and a 17" that was given to me (loose solder joint). Plus 6 computer
monitors if those count. I watch more monitor than TV anyway. Sci-Fi and
news for me, about 6 hours a week total, so they are more decorative, and
in the way, rather than turned on.

[Bill]

Cheto wrote:

>
> "Jim Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>> most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>> way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.
>
> Most everything else?, like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.
>
> Cheto

Uh, guys?
Fox is the most right wing I have heard of. They were heavily trying to help
Bush in the last election. Anything pro-Bush or Anti-Kerry seemed to show
up on Fox first. So we got a Vietnam dodger making a Vietnam vet look bad
because he had second thoughts about it 'after' he served? I knew a lot of
guys that went to Vietnam and came home and wondered what the hell they
went for, but they DID go, unlike Bush. If any of you ever get the chance,
buy a short wave radio, (good one) and listen to the foreign broadcasts
about the United States. You can pick up BBC, Japan, China, Australia, and
numerous other countries broadcasting in English and not censored by our
government and hear what they think of us. It sure isn't what MSNBC or Fox
tells you.
Bill Baka

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Bill > wrote:

>>> I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio
>>> and television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't
>>> like his big business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it
>>> doesn't get to where a corrupt administration can unfairly
>>> influence or kill programs that don't voice the point of view.


>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>> field day with it.
>>
>> Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $695 ti frame
>
> I mainly listen to or watch public media because it is not all about
> profit and some stupid shows like fear factor or big brother. The
> nature and history specials are good but apparently the present
> administration thinks they are painting the 'nature' as being
> unfairly targeted by the Republicans. You know, screw the habitat and
> give us the oil, trees, whatever. Look what has been happening to the
> rain forest for the last 30 years or so, and when it's gone it ain't
> coming back. I think that in the end, the planet will have the last
> laugh after a few thousand years of humans screwing things up and
> then making themselves extinct. Same effect as a big impact event 65
> million years ago, just a different cause. Think about it, we are a
> very small blip on the global time line.
> Bill Baka

Bill, what part of "CLINTON-appointed head of the agency..." did you not
understand???

PBS was started a jillion years ago when there were three networks and maybe
one or two local stations in most cities. It served a valuable purpose as
an alternative to commercial television. (In fact, PBS used to be called
"Educational TV" IIRC.)

Nowadays, there's the History Channel, A & E, Bravo, C-SPAN I & II, etc.
etc. etc. Why can't PBS sink or swim on its own? And, if it IS to keep
getting Federal (taxpayer) funding, why should it not present a /balance/ of
political views?

Two cents please, BS

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 26 May 2005 18:51:15 -0700,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:

>
>You sound entirely paranoid about the situation. You should do some
>research on the ratio of Dems to Reps on the airwaves before
>complaining about a falling sky.

Screw your jackass vs. elephant cartoon politics that are laughable to
anyone with a brain and disgusting to anyone with a conscience.

Shutting activist groups out from broadcasting rights is the rule
rather than the exception at CBS.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/22/cbscenso.html

An unnamed senior FCC official told the Washington Post that CPB under
Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the
truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a
right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."

http://www.livejournal.com/community/pbsjunkies/37452.html
--
zk

[Geezer Boy]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:55:43 -0700, Mark Hickey >
wrote:

>Jim Smith > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > writes:
>
>>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>>> field day with it.
>>
>>Good grief! if you think npr is "annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal"
>>what would you say about Pacifica? WBAI in particular? Been around
>>for a long time, but actually, I am not optimistic that you are
>>familliar with them.
>
>You'd be right... I listen to very little radio - pretty much limited
>to a local talk radio station when I'm actually driving somewhere.
>
>>Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>>most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>>way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.
>
>I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
>That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
>imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
>ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
>like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame


It's interesting how we slowly change our adaptation level to stimuli.
The baseline, the reference point shifts so gradually that we don't
even notice it. Other than Pacifica, I have never heard a true
"leftish" radio station in all my travels and sixty years in the USA.
What formerly was centrist is now called "liberal" or "left." This is
no secret in journalism schools. America's center has shifted way to
the right over the past twenty years. European experiences and
conversations would confirm this to doubters, as can many of those who
grew up in the sixties in the USA.

Bill Moyers is practically a lone voice in this current
homogenization of the airwaves and mass-media political climate.
That's the danger.

This country has been going down the old drainpipe for some time and
it isn't getting better. Look out for yourself, screw the other people
who don't have your advantages. Tough luck, pal. But things move in
cycles so perhaps there's hope.

G.B.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to
be a fool. William Shakespeare, "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1

[Geezer Boy]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:21:04 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article >,
> Mark Hickey > writes:
>>
>> I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
>> That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
>> imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
>> ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
>> like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.
>
>I'd think Lyndon LaRouche would be a more appropriate
>counterbalance to Rush Limbaugh -- the two ends of the
>same wacky stick.
>
>Anyhow, when I hear "public broadcasting", I think more PBS
>than NPR. I enjoy shows like Nova and American Experience.
>At least they're more mentally stimulating than Growing up
>Gotti or Dog the Bounty Hunter.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom

What's that? Mentally stimulating? Don't you follow Michael Jackson?
The Pope? Runaway Bride? Survivor?

"I got my TV and video games and I don't need no school learning tuh
raise young uns."

G.B.

[max]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote:

> PBS was started a jillion years ago when there were three networks and maybe
> one or two local stations in most cities. It served a valuable purpose as
> an alternative to commercial television. (In fact, PBS used to be called
> "Educational TV" IIRC.)
>
> Nowadays, there's the History Channel, A & E, Bravo, C-SPAN I & II, etc.
> etc. etc. Why can't PBS sink or swim on its own? [...]

listening to all that wonkish oatmeal (or alternatively, shrieking
neocon propaganda) crap will render your synaptic conduction inert.

Listen to 80's Dance and Disco instead. Much better for the mind.
Better cadences, too.

..max
Itchi Gitchi Ya Ya Da Da

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:19:38 -0400, Geezer Boy
> wrote:

>It's interesting how we slowly change our adaptation level to stimuli.
>The baseline, the reference point shifts so gradually that we don't
>even notice it.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is quite thought-provoking, I find.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Jim Smith]

"Cheto" > writes:

> "Jim Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>> most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>> way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.
>
> Most everything else?, like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.

Yes.

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:19:38 -0400, Geezer Boy > wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:55:43 -0700, Mark Hickey >
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Smith > wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey > writes:
>>
>>>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>>>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>>>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>>>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>>>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>>>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>>>> field day with it.
>>>
>>>Good grief! if you think npr is "annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal"
>>>what would you say about Pacifica? WBAI in particular? Been around
>>>for a long time, but actually, I am not optimistic that you are
>>>familliar with them.
>>
>>You'd be right... I listen to very little radio - pretty much limited
>>to a local talk radio station when I'm actually driving somewhere.
>>
>>>Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>>>most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>>>way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.
>>
>>I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
>>That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
>>imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
>>ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
>>like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.
>>
>>Mark Hickey
>>Habanero Cycles
>>http://www.habcycles.com
>>Home of the $695 ti frame
>
>
>It's interesting how we slowly change our adaptation level to stimuli.
>The baseline, the reference point shifts so gradually that we don't
>even notice it. Other than Pacifica, I have never heard a true
>"leftish" radio station in all my travels and sixty years in the USA.

What?!!?!?! We get freeking Noam Chomsky lectures here in Tampa. Left wing
call-in shows and a pacifica feed.

>What formerly was centrist is now called "liberal" or "left." This is
>no secret in journalism schools. America's center has shifted way to
>the right over the past twenty years. European experiences and
>conversations would confirm this to doubters, as can many of those who
>grew up in the sixties in the USA.

Whatever are you talking about. I did grow up in the sixties and JFK would be a
freeking Republican now. The Democrat party has shifted so far left that maybe
that is why you perceive the center as moving right.

>Bill Moyers is practically a lone voice in this current
>homogenization of the airwaves and mass-media political climate.
>That's the danger.

What? That our government sponsored that whack-left nutbag with our tax dollars?

>This country has been going down the old drainpipe for some time and
>it isn't getting better. Look out for yourself, screw the other people
>who don't have your advantages. Tough luck, pal. But things move in
>cycles so perhaps there's hope.

Whatever are you talking about?

Ron


>G.B.
>
> The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to
>be a fool. William Shakespeare, "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1
>
>

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:51:25 -0700, Bill > wrote:

>Cheto wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jim Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Oh, and I will give you a hint, npr is not particularly "liberal,"
>>> most everything else is just so far to the right that it seems that
>>> way in comparison to folks who are not paying attention.
>>
>> Most everything else?, like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.
>>
>> Cheto
>
>Uh, guys?
>Fox is the most right wing I have heard of.

They probably are.

>They were heavily trying to help
>Bush in the last election. Anything pro-Bush or Anti-Kerry seemed to show
>up on Fox first. So we got a Vietnam dodger making a Vietnam vet look bad
>because he had second thoughts about it 'after' he served? I knew a lot of
>guys that went to Vietnam and came home and wondered what the hell they
>went for, but they DID go, unlike Bush.

Bush couldn't have gotten into 'nam if he got on his knees and begged. Al Gore
wanted to go to help his dad (who had a helluva lot more clout than Bush)
politically and only managed (needed, wanted) a couple months and with full time
body guards in the rear echelon. After McCain nobody who was the son of anyone
prominent was going to be sent anywhere near the enemy. Bush didn't dodge a damn
thing.

Consider it unfair if you like. But the potential propaganda value to the enemy
demanded it. Kerry on the other hand did more damage himself than the enemy did
in that department. BTW where are those records he was promising us. Guy says
he's a freeking war hero but won't show his DD-214.

>If any of you ever get the chance,
>buy a short wave radio, (good one) and listen to the foreign broadcasts
>about the United States. You can pick up BBC, Japan, China, Australia, and
>numerous other countries broadcasting in English and not censored by our
>government and hear what they think of us. It sure isn't what MSNBC or Fox
>tells you.

It isn't exactly the truth either. First rule of international journalism, any
English language broadcast or paper from a non English speaking country is
propaganda. Not enough expat English speaking communities anywhere to support
them.

Ron


>Bill Baka

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:24:43 -0700, Bill > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Bill > wrote:
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bush makes it
>>>>> look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>>>
>>>> That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>>>> down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>>>
>>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>>>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>>>business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>>>where a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs
>>>that don't voice the point of view.
>>
>> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>> field day with it.
>>
>> Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $695 ti frame
>
>I mainly listen to or watch public media because it is not all about profit
>and some stupid shows like fear factor or big brother. The nature and
>history specials are good but apparently the present administration thinks
>they are painting the 'nature' as being unfairly targeted by the
>Republicans. You know, screw the habitat and give us the oil, trees,
>whatever. Look what has been happening to the rain forest for the last 30
>years or so, and when it's gone it ain't coming back.

Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a rainforest in the
Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and growing and largely protected.

If you want to complain about what other countries are doing with their rain
forests that's another thread. Unless you think America should just invade and
dictate resource policy to the rest of the world.

> I think that in the
>end, the planet will have the last laugh after a few thousand years of
>humans screwing things up and then making themselves extinct. Same effect
>as a big impact event 65 million years ago, just a different cause. Think
>about it, we are a very small blip on the global time line.

So which is it that stupid and arrogant "we're destroying the planet" rhetoric?
Or, that we should look out for our long term future in a potentially dangerous
and changeable world?

Ron

[Mark Hickey]

Zoot Katz > wrote:

>Thu, 26 May 2005 18:51:15 -0700,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:
>
>>You sound entirely paranoid about the situation. You should do some
>>research on the ratio of Dems to Reps on the airwaves before
>>complaining about a falling sky.
>
>Screw your jackass vs. elephant cartoon politics that are laughable to
>anyone with a brain and disgusting to anyone with a conscience.

Yeah, why look at facts when you can rant. After all, facts and
statistics are so much less fun than getting your knickers all twisted
up, huh?

>Shutting activist groups out from broadcasting rights is the rule
>rather than the exception at CBS.
>
>http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/22/cbscenso.html

Heh heh heh... yeah, the folks at CBS have proven to be part of the
great right wing conspiracy all right. Heh heh heh... (shaking head).

>An unnamed senior FCC official told the Washington Post that CPB under
>Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the
>truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a
>right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/community/pbsjunkies/37452.html

An (one) unnamed official. Whoo boy, now THERE's a compelling
argument. Zoot, if you haven't figured out that pretty much
everything in this world has become a political football, and that the
opinion of anyone near either edge of the spectrum can't be trusted,
you're in for a very scary life indeed. If you embrace every vague
bit of supposition that squirts out of someone's hyperactive
imagination you're going to get even more paranoid.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Geezer Boy > wrote:

>It's interesting how we slowly change our adaptation level to stimuli.
>The baseline, the reference point shifts so gradually that we don't
>even notice it. Other than Pacifica, I have never heard a true
>"leftish" radio station in all my travels and sixty years in the USA.
>What formerly was centrist is now called "liberal" or "left." This is
>no secret in journalism schools. America's center has shifted way to
>the right over the past twenty years. European experiences and
>conversations would confirm this to doubters, as can many of those who
>grew up in the sixties in the USA.

It's all a matter of perspective. Still, it can't be disputed that
the (vast?) majority of those in the media vote Democrat and consider
themselves liberal.

FWIW, I took the test on the politicalcompass.org site, and ended up
in the lower left quadrant (but fairly close to the "crosshairs"). I
personally think there's plenty of liberal bias in the mainstream
media, but you're probably right about there not being too many
"leftist" outlets out there. Let's face it, hyperliberalism doesn't
make good media - it seems unlikely that the rabid left will ever find
a Rush Limbaugh. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Jim Smith]

RonSonic > writes:

> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a rainforest in the
> Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and growing and largely protected.

What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would like to
know what you are talking about?

[Jim Smith]

RonSonic > writes:

> What?!!?!?! We get freeking Noam Chomsky lectures here in Tampa. Left wing
> call-in shows and a pacifica feed.

I suspect that by "pacifica feed" you mean you have a local station
which carries "Democracy Now!" for five hours a week, or what?

[Jim Smith]

Mark Hickey > writes:

> I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal

I must have misunderstood when you said: "I know I avoid it because
it's just too annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal." Care to
straighten me out?

[Bill Sornson]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 26 May 2005 18:51:15 -0700,
> >, Mark Hickey
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> You sound entirely paranoid about the situation. You should do some
>> research on the ratio of Dems to Reps on the airwaves before
>> complaining about a falling sky.

> Screw your jackass vs. elephant cartoon politics that are laughable to
> anyone with a brain and disgusting to anyone with a conscience.

Yeah, screw those right-wing Hollywood types and east coast media moguls!
Oh, wait...

> Shutting activist groups out from broadcasting rights is the rule
> rather than the exception at CBS.
>
> http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/22/cbscenso.html
>
> An unnamed senior FCC official told the Washington Post that CPB under
> Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the
> truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a
> right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/pbsjunkies/37452.html

Tomlinson was a CLINTON appointee. Vast right wing conspiracy?!?

Methinks ZK needs a ride...BAD.

[Jim Smith]

"Bill Sornson" > writes:

> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> Thu, 26 May 2005 18:51:15 -0700,
>> >, Mark Hickey
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You sound entirely paranoid about the situation. You should do some
>>> research on the ratio of Dems to Reps on the airwaves before
>>> complaining about a falling sky.
>
>> Screw your jackass vs. elephant cartoon politics that are laughable to
>> anyone with a brain and disgusting to anyone with a conscience.
>
> Yeah, screw those right-wing Hollywood types and east coast media moguls!
> Oh, wait...
>
>> Shutting activist groups out from broadcasting rights is the rule
>> rather than the exception at CBS.
>>
>> http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/22/cbscenso.html
>>
>> An unnamed senior FCC official told the Washington Post that CPB under
>> Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the
>> truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a
>> right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/community/pbsjunkies/37452.html
>
> Tomlinson was a CLINTON appointee. Vast right wing conspiracy?!?

Not sure if you are joking here or not. You do realize that who
appointed him is irrelevant to the agenda today, right? Belief
otherwise is evidence of sloppy, muddled groupthink.

[Mark Hickey]

Jim Smith > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > writes:
>
>> I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal
>
>I must have misunderstood when you said: "I know I avoid it because
>it's just too annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal." Care to
>straighten me out?

There is certainly some distance between "rabidly" and "annoyingly,
hand-wringingly" liberal. The former is Howard Dean off his meds.
The latter is a lot more subtle (like leaving out half the story to
make a point, etc.).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 27 May 2005 13:04:18 GMT,
>, RonSonic
> wrote:

>What?!!?!?! We get freeking Noam Chomsky lectures here in Tampa.

Clearly casting pearls before swine.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 27 May 2005 06:48:56 -0700,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:

>FWIW, I took the test on the politicalcompass.org site, and ended up
>in the lower left quadrant (but fairly close to the "crosshairs").

Me too but I was closer to Prokofiev, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 27 May 2005 06:35:43 -0700,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:

>>
>>http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/22/cbscenso.html
>
>Heh heh heh... yeah, the folks at CBS have proven to be part of the
>great right wing conspiracy all right. Heh heh heh... (shaking head).

Nice mullet but you missed my point. I acknowledge _no_ difference
between your cartoon parties. They're both puppets of the military
industrial complex which actually runs your country. The real power in
your republic flows from an inbred festering **** pit of lying war
mongers and scumbags whose stench has corrupted the nation.
Got it?
--
zk

[Bill Baka]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill > wrote:
>
>
>>>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio
>>>>and television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't
>>>>like his big business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it
>>>>doesn't get to where a corrupt administration can unfairly
>>>>influence or kill programs that don't voice the point of view.
>
>
>
>>>The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>>>tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>>>range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>>>political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>>>annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>>>"vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>>>field day with it.
>>>
>>>Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
>>>Habanero Cycles
>>>http://www.habcycles.com
>>>Home of the $695 ti frame
>>
>>I mainly listen to or watch public media because it is not all about
>>profit and some stupid shows like fear factor or big brother. The
>>nature and history specials are good but apparently the present
>>administration thinks they are painting the 'nature' as being
>>unfairly targeted by the Republicans. You know, screw the habitat and
>>give us the oil, trees, whatever. Look what has been happening to the
>>rain forest for the last 30 years or so, and when it's gone it ain't
>>coming back. I think that in the end, the planet will have the last
>>laugh after a few thousand years of humans screwing things up and
>>then making themselves extinct. Same effect as a big impact event 65
>>million years ago, just a different cause. Think about it, we are a
>>very small blip on the global time line.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> Bill, what part of "CLINTON-appointed head of the agency..." did you not
> understand???
>
> PBS was started a jillion years ago when there were three networks and maybe
> one or two local stations in most cities. It served a valuable purpose as
> an alternative to commercial television. (In fact, PBS used to be called
> "Educational TV" IIRC.)
>
> Nowadays, there's the History Channel, A & E, Bravo, C-SPAN I & II, etc.
> etc. etc. Why can't PBS sink or swim on its own? And, if it IS to keep
> getting Federal (taxpayer) funding, why should it not present a /balance/ of
> political views?
>
> Two cents please, BS
>
>
The answer should be obvious. If there is nothing more educating on
network television, go to PBS and you might find a good documentary on
something that you can learn something. I don't care if all the
'Survivors' get killed, or the 'fear factor' people drop dead, it is
junk television. PBS is a bit above that but they are having to change
their standards a bit just to stay on the air. I have pretty much given
up on the big 3 NBC, CBS, ABC, and for all that matter MicrosoftNBC, and
Fox. UPN is ****ing me off by canceling some innovative shows before
they get a chance. My televisions could all be collecting dust soon.
As far as all the other channels, there are a few hundred too many, and
a few hundred million couch potatos because of that situation.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Geezer Boy wrote:
>
> It's interesting how we slowly change our adaptation level to stimuli.
> The baseline, the reference point shifts so gradually that we don't
> even notice it. Other than Pacifica, I have never heard a true
> "leftish" radio station in all my travels and sixty years in the USA.
> What formerly was centrist is now called "liberal" or "left." This is
> no secret in journalism schools. America's center has shifted way to
> the right over the past twenty years. European experiences and
> conversations would confirm this to doubters, as can many of those who
> grew up in the sixties in the USA.
>
> Bill Moyers is practically a lone voice in this current
> homogenization of the airwaves and mass-media political climate.
> That's the danger.
>
> This country has been going down the old drainpipe for some time and
> it isn't getting better. Look out for yourself, screw the other people
> who don't have your advantages. Tough luck, pal. But things move in
> cycles so perhaps there's hope.
>
> G.B.
>
> The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to
> be a fool. William Shakespeare, "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1
>
>
>
Finally someone old enough to have seen what has been happening to this
country in the last 30, 40, 50 years. The 50's were the age of
innocence, relatively, 60's growing up on Vietnam, and 70's just getting
stoned and ignoring what you can't change.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:24:43 -0700, Bill > wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bush makes it
>>>>>>look like there is a terrorist behind every tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>That explains why he's opening up federal land to logging! We must cut
>>>>>down the trees so the terrorists cannot hide behind them!
>>>>
>>>>I just heard on the news he wants to cut funding for public radio and
>>>>television because they are too 'liberal', meaning they don't like his big
>>>>business, rape the Alaskan refuge plan. I sure hope it doesn't get to
>>>>where a corrupt administration can unfairly influence or kill programs
>>>>that don't voice the point of view.
>>>
>>>The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
>>>tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
>>>range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
>>>political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
>>>annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
>>>"vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
>>>field day with it.
>>>
>>>Mark "paranoia runs deep" Hickey
>>>Habanero Cycles
>>>http://www.habcycles.com
>>>Home of the $695 ti frame
>>
>>I mainly listen to or watch public media because it is not all about profit
>>and some stupid shows like fear factor or big brother. The nature and
>>history specials are good but apparently the present administration thinks
>>they are painting the 'nature' as being unfairly targeted by the
>>Republicans. You know, screw the habitat and give us the oil, trees,
>>whatever. Look what has been happening to the rain forest for the last 30
>>years or so, and when it's gone it ain't coming back.
>
>
> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a rainforest in the
> Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and growing and largely protected.
>
> If you want to complain about what other countries are doing with their rain
> forests that's another thread. Unless you think America should just invade and
> dictate resource policy to the rest of the world.
>
>
>>I think that in the
>>end, the planet will have the last laugh after a few thousand years of
>>humans screwing things up and then making themselves extinct. Same effect
>>as a big impact event 65 million years ago, just a different cause. Think
>>about it, we are a very small blip on the global time line.
>
>
> So which is it that stupid and arrogant "we're destroying the planet" rhetoric?
> Or, that we should look out for our long term future in a potentially dangerous
> and changeable world?
>
> Ron

WE don't have a long term future. Fact of life. Maybe a few thousand
years more before we become extinct and the planet gets a few million
years in to evolve another intelligent life form, hopefully not so
damned arrogant.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Jim Smith wrote:
> RonSonic > writes:
>
>
>>Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a rainforest in the
>>Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and growing and largely protected.
>
>
> What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would like to
> know what you are talking about?

There is a small protected area that the Republicans would dearly love
to cut down for the logging profits, but that is way less than 1% of
global rain forests.
Wrong reference.
Bill Baka

[Mark Hickey]

Bill Baka > wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Nowadays, there's the History Channel, A & E, Bravo, C-SPAN I & II, etc.
>> etc. etc. Why can't PBS sink or swim on its own? And, if it IS to keep
>> getting Federal (taxpayer) funding, why should it not present a /balance/ of
>> political views?
>>
>The answer should be obvious.

Though you don't give a clue to what the "answer" is below... curious.

> If there is nothing more educating on
>network television, go to PBS and you might find a good documentary on
>something that you can learn something. I don't care if all the
>'Survivors' get killed, or the 'fear factor' people drop dead, it is
>junk television. PBS is a bit above that but they are having to change
>their standards a bit just to stay on the air. I have pretty much given
>up on the big 3 NBC, CBS, ABC, and for all that matter MicrosoftNBC, and
>Fox. UPN is ****ing me off by canceling some innovative shows before
>they get a chance. My televisions could all be collecting dust soon.
>As far as all the other channels, there are a few hundred too many, and
>a few hundred million couch potatos because of that situation.

I agree with your assessment of the major networks though - it's
dumbed-down TV for those who don't want to put their brain in gear
when they turn on the tube. To add to the list Bill Sornson put forth
above, there's TLC (The Learning Channel) and Discovery (the one I
watch the most, even before they got into bike racing).

Thing is, all the programming Bill S. and I listed manages to produce
outstanding content, but also manages to keep it devoid of political
bias of any stripe. I don't see why we should set the bar lower for
an entity that receives tax money from all of us.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Bill Baka > wrote:

>WE don't have a long term future. Fact of life. Maybe a few thousand
>years more before we become extinct and the planet gets a few million
>years in to evolve another intelligent life form, hopefully not so
>damned arrogant.

Well heck, then why worry? Eat, drink and be happy for tomorrow we
die. I doubt nature will really have a problem recovering from a few
more excesses during our lifetime.

Mark "where's my chainsaw" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith > wrote:

>RonSonic > writes:
>
>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a rainforest in the
>> Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and growing and largely protected.
>
>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would like to
>know what you are talking about?

The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the planet (as far
as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the US.

Ron

[Mike Latondresse]

RonSonic > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>RonSonic > writes:
>>
>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>> growing and largely protected.
>>
>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>like to know what you are talking about?
>
> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
> US.
>
> Ron
>
It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still is.

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:04:07 GMT, Mike Latondresse >
wrote:

>RonSonic > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>
>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>
>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>
>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>> US.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still is.

Who cares, that's in Canada. :-0

Actually you're right and thanks for the reminder.

Anyway, my original point was that Baka's whining about the US approach to the
environment and the state of the rainforests is absurd. Except for that little
piece, none of it is within our jurisdiction. I'm sure you'd thank us to not try
to tell you what to do with yours.

Ron

[Jim Smith]

Mike Latondresse > writes:

> RonSonic > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>
>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>
>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>
>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>> US.
>>
>> Ron
>>
> It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still is.

My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy, growing,
and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well in the
rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

[Jim Smith]

RonSonic > writes:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:04:07 GMT, Mike Latondresse >
> wrote:
>
>>RonSonic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>>
>>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>>
>>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>>> US.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still is.
>
> Who cares, that's in Canada. :-0
>
> Actually you're right and thanks for the reminder.
>
> Anyway, my original point was that Baka's whining about the US approach to the
> environment and the state of the rainforests is absurd. Except for that little
> piece, none of it is within our jurisdiction. I'm sure you'd thank us to not try
> to tell you what to do with yours.

Actually, Bush would like to see the Tongass forest in Alaska
logged. And he would like to spend your tax dollars building roads to
do it.

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 28 May 2005 21:53:25 -0500, >,
Jim Smith > wrote:

>My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy, growing,
>and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well in the
>rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

Not to mention the devastation caused by bud worms and pine beetles
thanks to global warming.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Mark Hickey > writes:

> I don't see why we should set the bar lower for
> an entity that receives tax money from all of us.

Getting away from a bunch of ideologuery, you might
find this an interesting read (I do):
http://www.neopolitique.org/Np2000/Pages/Essays/Articles/pbs.html

Getting back into a bunch of ideologuery, maybe
it would be best if PBS distanced itself from
federal influence. Then nobody could gripe about
tax money funding, and PBS could have more of a
free hand in their programming.


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

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> Sat, 28 May 2005 21:53:25 -0500, >,
> Jim Smith > wrote:
>
>>My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy, growing,
>>and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well in the
>>rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>
> Not to mention the devastation caused by bud worms and pine beetles
> thanks to global warming.

There was an item on the local TV news the other night,
about the survival of Western Red Cedar possibly being
threatened by reduced rainfall.


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

[Stephen Harding]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> The Clinton-appointed head of the agency that oversees doling out our
> tax money to PBR has made a good point that NPR would reach a wider
> range of listeners if it shifted more toward the center of the
> political spectrum (I know I avoid it because it's just too
> annoyingly, hand-wringingly liberal). This isn't another of those
> "vast right-wing conspiracies", even if the news media is having a
> field day with it.

I consider myself a moderate conservative. I like NPR and PBS and
tune in to both quite frequently.

I wish there was a bit more "balance" in their political POV offerings,
but it doesn't make me tune out. I don't even mind some public
assistance to them.

If PBS wants to air NOW (formerly with Bill Moyers), a blatantly
liberal spin show, there should also be a blatantly conservative
show as well, *if it's going to be publicly funded*.

Having Daniel Shore do news "analysis" isn't exactly balance unless
you also add, say George Will. PBS does this sort of thing with their
news show at the end of the week, and I applaud them for it.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Geezer Boy wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:21:04 -0700, (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Mark Hickey > writes:
>>
>>>I don't think NPR is rabidly liberal, but they clearly display a bias.
>>>That's really not what tax money should go to support - I would
>>>imagine if GWB proposed creating a second NPR with Rush Limbaugh to
>>>ballance Bill Moyer, there'd be (justifiable) howls of outrage. I'd
>>>like to see NPR become completely apolitical, personally.
>>
>>I'd think Lyndon LaRouche would be a more appropriate
>>counterbalance to Rush Limbaugh -- the two ends of the
>>same wacky stick.
>>
>>Anyhow, when I hear "public broadcasting", I think more PBS
>>than NPR. I enjoy shows like Nova and American Experience.
>>At least they're more mentally stimulating than Growing up
>>Gotti or Dog the Bounty Hunter.
>
> What's that? Mentally stimulating? Don't you follow Michael Jackson?
> The Pope? Runaway Bride? Survivor?
>
> "I got my TV and video games and I don't need no school learning tuh
> raise young uns."

I heard an interview on...NPR... last week where it was argued
that current TV programming was actually *improving* the
minds of young people, and spending lots of time in front of
the tube perhaps wasn't as detrimental as is commonly thought.

The gist of the argument was that modern popular TV shows now
commonly have very large numbers of characters and story lines
going on that requires more brain work to keep straight and
follow.

This compared with very simple, predictable stuff of popular
shows of the 80's and earlier.

An interesting premise that I can't say I entirely buy into.


SMH

[Mark Hickey]

(Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> Mark Hickey > writes:
>
>> I don't see why we should set the bar lower for
>> an entity that receives tax money from all of us.
>
>Getting away from a bunch of ideologuery, you might
>find this an interesting read (I do):
>http://www.neopolitique.org/Np2000/Pages/Essays/Articles/pbs.html

Very interesting article, indeed.

>Getting back into a bunch of ideologuery, maybe
>it would be best if PBS distanced itself from
>federal influence. Then nobody could gripe about
>tax money funding, and PBS could have more of a
>free hand in their programming.

Absolutely. I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
helping fund it personally.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mike Kruger]

I also heard that NPR piece.

My guess is that the author of that book began it as satire, then
realized that it would play better (i.e. make him more money) if he
took his own thesis seriously.

If his theory is right, the smartest people on earth were 19th century
Russians. They were reading these gigantically long novels in which
each character has several names as they wander through complicated
plots.

Dang good literature, though, compared to modern TV.

[Neil Brooks]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

>I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>helping fund it personally.

I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
religions.

[Jim Smith]

Neil Brooks > writes:

> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>helping fund it personally.
>
> I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
> religions.

Particularly when they are actively involved in campaigns.

[Jim Smith]

"Mike Kruger" > writes:

> I also heard that NPR piece.
>
> My guess is that the author of that book began it as satire, then
> realized that it would play better (i.e. make him more money) if he
> took his own thesis seriously.
>
> If his theory is right, the smartest people on earth were 19th century
> Russians. They were reading these gigantically long novels in which
> each character has several names as they wander through complicated
> plots.

Steven Johnson: "Everything Bad is Good for You"

He is quite serious, he has written a handfull of books with similar
themes. I agree that many contemporary shows are more demanding of
the viewer than any offering from the past. That is just my opinion
and I don't know if it means anything.

[Mike Latondresse]

Jim Smith > wrote in
:

> Mike Latondresse > writes:
>
>> RonSonic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>>
>>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>>
>>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>>> US.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>> It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still
>> is.
>
> My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy,
> growing, and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well
> in the rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>
I don't know how long you worked in the forest industry but a clear
cut is the most effective and efficient way to harvest and reseed.
Selective logging is a disaster and destroys less mature trees as in
a reasonable forested environment you can't fell without taking down
other smaller trees. When you clearcut everything comes down, the
slash becomes the fertilizer for the next generation and replanting
gets the new growth all started at the same size. When you try and
plant where the are bigger trees left they shade and stunt the growth
of the new ones and every thing is mess.

I know this is not the PC view of forestry management but it is the
one that works best.

[Bill Sornson]

Jim Smith wrote:
> Neil Brooks > writes:
>
>> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>
>>> I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>> helping fund it personally.
>>
>> I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>> religions.
>
> Particularly when they are actively involved in campaigns.

Yeah, those political speeches from the pulpit need to stop!

(Or did you mean "church groups" organizing rides to the polls for "newly
registered" homeless voters?)

[Jim Smith]

"Bill Sornson" > writes:

> Jim Smith wrote:
>> Neil Brooks > writes:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>>> helping fund it personally.
>>>
>>> I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>>> religions.
>>
>> Particularly when they are actively involved in campaigns.
>
> Yeah, those political speeches from the pulpit need to stop!
>
> (Or did you mean "church groups" organizing rides to the polls for "newly
> registered" homeless voters?)

The political speeches from the pulpit.

[Jim Smith]

Mike Latondresse > writes:

> Jim Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mike Latondresse > writes:
>>
>>> RonSonic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>>>
>>>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>>>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still
>>> is.
>>
>> My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy,
>> growing, and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well
>> in the rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>>
> I don't know how long you worked in the forest industry

When did I claim to work in the forest industry? What the **** is
this all about?

> but a clear cut is the most effective and efficient way to harvest
> and reseed. Selective logging is a disaster and destroys less
> mature trees as in a reasonable forested environment you can't fell
> without taking down other smaller trees. When you clearcut
> everything comes down, the slash becomes the fertilizer for the next
> generation and replanting gets the new growth all started at the
> same size. When you try and plant where the are bigger trees left
> they shade and stunt the growth of the new ones and every thing is
> mess.
>
> I know this is not the PC view of forestry management but it is the
> one that works best.

It is the one that works best if you only view the forest as a source
of paper pulp. What you get after clearcutting is certainly nothing
like what you started with. It is like comparing a corn field to a
native prarie. (there are none of those)

[Chalo]

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> If PBS wants to air NOW (formerly with Bill Moyers), a blatantly
> liberal spin show, there should also be a blatantly conservative
> show as well, *if it's going to be publicly funded*.
>
> Having Daniel Shore do news "analysis" isn't exactly balance unless
> you also add, say George Will. PBS does this sort of thing with their
> news show at the end of the week, and I applaud them for it.

There is a fallacy that says the middle path is the best one. The
problem lies in choosing the middle path between what is observably
true and what is provably false, between beneficial and lethal, between
compassion and malice.

Observe that the current situation in Iraq represents a middle path
between "no blood for oil" and "nuke 'em". Both represented extremes
of public opinion on the matter, but one was right and the other was
wrong. So the halfway point between them has proved to be a disaster.


In the same way, placing liberals and conservatives (as they are known
these days) opposite each other on the ends of the political spectrum,
is a fallacy. Conservatives promote legal persecution, economic
marginalization, imprisonment, and military action against their
political opponents. A Leftist counterpart to this does not exist in
our society at this time. If it did, you would be able to find
educated Leftists who called for the imprisonment of Christian
Fundamentalists, the execution of corporate criminals, legal
prohibitions against monogamy, and the military "regime change" of
Singapore, Italy, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

You won't find the American Left espousing the opposite of what the
American Right espouses, because the opposite counterpart to the Right
is just as twisted and wrong. Social welfare is not the moral
equivalent of entrenching a plutocracy. Taxing the wealthy is not the
moral equivalent of conducting perpetual warfare. Compromising between
false "extremes" like these is a sure way to indulge the most odious
scoundrels with half of what they want.

American liberals are not an extreme, but the rational side of a
political system that only has one extreme.

Chalo Colina

[Mike Kruger]

Yes, that's the guy. Thanks for supplying the name and book.
(here's another review: http://slate.com/id/2117395/ )

He may have a point that TV plots have more threads, but it's a big
leap to saying it improves humanity. Is he serious, or calculating?
I'm unconvinced he actually believes what he's saying, but I admit I
can't offer some sort of smoking gun for his insincerity.

[Zoot Katz]

29 May 2005 21:22:40 -0700,
. com>, "Mike Kruger"
> wrote:

>He may have a point that TV plots have more threads, but it's a big
>leap to saying it improves humanity

All I see on TV are consumption, murder, violence, aggression and
dangerous driving being glorified.

The average American child views 200,000 violent acts on TV by age 18.
Children witness 16,000 murders on television by the age 18.
Network news coverage of homicide increased 721% between 1993 and
1996. During that same period the American homicide rate dropped 20%.

http://www.tvturnoff.org/images/facts&figs/factsheets/FactsFigs.pdf
--
zk

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:55:13 -0500, Jim Smith > wrote:

>"Bill Sornson" > writes:
>
>> Jim Smith wrote:
>>> Neil Brooks > writes:
>>>
>>>> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>>>> helping fund it personally.
>>>>
>>>> I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>>>> religions.
>>>
>>> Particularly when they are actively involved in campaigns.
>>
>> Yeah, those political speeches from the pulpit need to stop!
>>
>> (Or did you mean "church groups" organizing rides to the polls for "newly
>> registered" homeless voters?)
>
>The political speeches from the pulpit.

That tour John Kerry did of all those churches was tasteless, but I don't think
banning is in order.

Ron

[Mark Hickey]

Neil Brooks > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>helping fund it personally.
>
>I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>religions.

One has nothing to do with the other. There's a big difference
between tax-exempt and tax-supported. Should we strip the tax-exempt
status from all philanthropic and arts-oriented organizations as well
(since not everyone agrees with those as well)?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Jim Smith > wrote:

>"Bill Sornson" > writes:
>
>> Jim Smith wrote:
>>> Neil Brooks > writes:
>>>
>>>> Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>>>> helping fund it personally.
>>>>
>>>> I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>>>> religions.
>>>
>>> Particularly when they are actively involved in campaigns.
>>
>> Yeah, those political speeches from the pulpit need to stop!
>>
>> (Or did you mean "church groups" organizing rides to the polls for "newly
>> registered" homeless voters?)
>
>The political speeches from the pulpit.

I attended a service in Trinity Church (at the head of Wall Street)
where the (very liberal) pastor (bishop, I believe) bemoaned how
politics had gotten into every aspect of US life... and then proceeded
to give a very (left-leaning) political sermon. Sigh...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Neil Brooks]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

>Neil Brooks > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>
>>>I have NO problem with PBS's bias once I'm no longer
>>>helping fund it personally.
>>
>>I'd give you that if you'd remove the tax-exempt status from
>>religions.
>
>One has nothing to do with the other. There's a big difference
>between tax-exempt and tax-supported. Should we strip the tax-exempt
>status from all philanthropic and arts-oriented organizations as well
>(since not everyone agrees with those as well)?

Distinction without a difference.

Remove the tax-exempt status and see how much support it *really*
provided.

. . . and then . . . yeah . . . we could talk about arts-oriented
organizations after that . . . sure....

[Mike Latondresse]

Jim Smith > wrote in
:

> Mike Latondresse > writes:
>
>> Jim Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mike Latondresse > writes:
>>>
>>>> RonSonic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>>>>> rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>>>>> growing and largely protected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>>>>> planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>> It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and
still
>>>> is.
>>>
>>> My objection is to the characterization of it as "healthy,
>>> growing, and largely protected." Clearcutting is alive and well
>>> in the rainforests of Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>>>
>> I don't know how long you worked in the forest industry
>
> When did I claim to work in the forest industry? What the **** is
> this all about?

So in other words you know bugger all about it just repeating some BS
you have heard.
>
>> but a clear cut is the most effective and efficient way to harvest
>> and reseed. Selective logging is a disaster and destroys less
>> mature trees as in a reasonable forested environment you can't
fell
>> without taking down other smaller trees. When you clearcut
>> everything comes down, the slash becomes the fertilizer for the
next
>> generation and replanting gets the new growth all started at the
>> same size. When you try and plant where the are bigger trees left
>> they shade and stunt the growth of the new ones and every thing is
>> mess.
>>
>> I know this is not the PC view of forestry management but it is
the
>> one that works best.
>
> It is the one that works best if you only view the forest as a
source
> of paper pulp.

No "rain forest" trees all go into lumber not pulp.

>What you get after clearcutting is certainly nothing
> like what you started with. It is like comparing a corn field to a
> native prarie. (there are none of those)
>
We have a forested area of almost 800 acres near us called the
University Endowment Land. It was clearcut during the WW1 and
reforested so it now has trees over 50m high (mostly Douglas Fur and
Cedar) and you would be hard pressed to identify that it had ever
been lumbered, specially if you don't know anything about the forest
industry.

[Mike Kruger]

Chalo wrote:
<<There is a fallacy that says the middle path is the best one. The
problem lies in choosing the middle path between what is observably
true and what is provably false, between beneficial and lethal, between
compassion and malice.

Observe that the current situation in Iraq represents a middle path
between "no blood for oil" and "nuke 'em". Both represented extremes
of public opinion on the matter, but one was right and the other was
wrong. So the halfway point between them has proved to be a disaster.
>>

I don't think the current path can be construed as a middle path. I
can't recall anyone raising the nuclear option as a possibility --
certainly no appreciable number of people.

[Bill Baka]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>WE don't have a long term future. Fact of life. Maybe a few thousand
>>years more before we become extinct and the planet gets a few million
>>years in to evolve another intelligent life form, hopefully not so
>>damned arrogant.
>
>
> Well heck, then why worry? Eat, drink and be happy for tomorrow we
> die. I doubt nature will really have a problem recovering from a few
> more excesses during our lifetime.
>
> Mark "where's my chainsaw" Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

I think we are safe for ourlifetime, yes, but my riding areas keep
getting paved over. Too many people, everywhere.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:04:07 GMT, Mike Latondresse >
> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 May 2005 08:51:40 -0500, Jim Smith
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RonSonic > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever the hell are you talking about?!?!?! There is a
>>>>>rainforest in the Pacific Northwest and it is healthy and
>>>>>growing and largely protected.
>>>>
>>>>What are YOU talking about? What rainforest? I seriously would
>>>>like to know what you are talking about?
>>>
>>>The Pacific Northwest has the only termperate rainforest on the
>>>planet (as far as I know) and the only actual rainforest in the
>>>US.
>>>
>>>Ron
>>>
>>
>>It does extend into BC by the way where most of it was, and still is.
>
>
> Who cares, that's in Canada. :-0
>
> Actually you're right and thanks for the reminder.
>
> Anyway, my original point was that Baka's whining about the US approach to the
> environment and the state of the rainforests is absurd. Except for that little
> piece, none of it is within our jurisdiction. I'm sure you'd thank us to not try
> to tell you what to do with yours.
>
> Ron
>
Whining? You mean cutting down all the green stuff all over the world is
fine with you? Riding through a giant redwood grove is too good to miss
because Bush wants to let loggers cut them down. I don't think he has
said that yet, but I doubt that he would oppose it.
B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green stuff
is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.
That's all.
Bill Baka

[Mark Hickey]

Bill Baka > wrote:

>Whining? You mean cutting down all the green stuff all over the world is
>fine with you?

I don't know anyone who wants to do that.

> Riding through a giant redwood grove is too good to miss
>because Bush wants to let loggers cut them down.

I haven't ever heard Bush say he wants to do that.

> I don't think he has
>said that yet, but I doubt that he would oppose it.

Oh, I see... he doesn't actually have to SAY something for it to be
true, and then held against him... right?

You seem to be getting a good workout jumping to (faulty) conclusions.
I'm not sure how much aerobic capacity that'll build though.

>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green stuff
>is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.

Yeah, we have no trees in the US. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:49:28 -0700, >,
Bill Baka > wrote:

>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green stuff
>is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.

British Columbia is brown from the air.
--
zk

[Bill Baka]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>Whining? You mean cutting down all the green stuff all over the world is
>>fine with you?
>
>
> I don't know anyone who wants to do that.

Any logger with a chain saw who might see a profit for himself.
>
>
>>Riding through a giant redwood grove is too good to miss
>>because Bush wants to let loggers cut them down.
>
>
> I haven't ever heard Bush say he wants to do that.
>
>
>>I don't think he has
>>said that yet, but I doubt that he would oppose it.
>
>
> Oh, I see... he doesn't actually have to SAY something for it to be
> true, and then held against him... right?
>
> You seem to be getting a good workout jumping to (faulty) conclusions.
> I'm not sure how much aerobic capacity that'll build though.

What I was allluding to, not stating as a fact, was that he is a lousy
president on ecological issues. If big business came to him and asked he
would probably not resist very much.
>
>
>>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green stuff
>>is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.
>
>
> Yeah, we have no trees in the US. Heh.

Not enough trees. Big basin is a great place to ride and is local to you
but around the country there just aren't that many pristine riding
areas. I was out in city traffic today and will have to concede that it
takes a good amount of concentration not to get hit with all the drivers
not even paying attention to one guy on a bike. Anyway, I just meant
that Canada has some great places with trees plus, and some beautiful
rides, in B.C., that I know of personally. Locally we had some nice big
old growth trees that were ripped out for one more house to be built in
a development of 1500 houses. There were only 3 big trees and they all
got trashed. The entire area would have been nicer if they had left them
in but they took up real estate that 3 more houses could be built on.
Corporate greed and development don't care about saving anything if it
will eat into their already considerable profits.
If you had been in the bay area and ridden around in 1963 like me you
would appreciate my concern for saving some green and not paving over
everything. I went to Campbell high school when Campbell ave. was a dirt
road, there was no San Tomas expressway, and there was a Winchester
drive-in.
Rant off.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

[Bill Baka]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:49:28 -0700, >,
> Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green stuff
>>is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.
>
>
> British Columbia is brown from the air.

I have been able to ride that high. Do you mean around Vancouver?
Bill Baka

[Mike Latondresse]

Bill Baka > wrote in
:

> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:49:28 -0700,
>> >, Bill Baka >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green
>>>stuff is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.
>>
>>
>> British Columbia is brown from the air.
>
> I have been able to ride that high. Do you mean around Vancouver?
> Bill Baka
>

No he means Pine Beetles and air/satellite pictures

[Bill Baka]

Mike Latondresse wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Zoot Katz wrote:
>>
>>>Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:49:28 -0700,
>, Bill Baka >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>B.C. in Canada is a beautiful place to ride because all the green
>>>>stuff is good, far better than pavement, traffic, and buildings.
>>>
>>>
>>>British Columbia is brown from the air.
>>
>>I have been able to ride that high. Do you mean around Vancouver?
>>Bill Baka
>>
>
>
> No he means Pine Beetles and air/satellite pictures

Whatever.
It still beats most of the United States. Try starting out in the middle
of Chicago or Los Angeles and finding a nice green spot without cars to
dodge.
Bill Baka

[gds]

Bill Baka wrote:
> It still beats most of the United States. Try starting out in the middle
> of Chicago or Los Angeles and finding a nice green spot without cars to
> dodge.
>

In no way do Imean this to bash Canada, but Bill you have a very
strange idea of what most of the US looks like. Sure, there are
horribly congested areas. But outside of the Northeast coridor and
California most of the large, congested metro areas sit in the middle
of huge tracts of totally open land.
So, while it may well be true that most people live in congested areas.
Most areas are not congested.

[Bill Baka]

gds wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>It still beats most of the United States. Try starting out in the middle
>>of Chicago or Los Angeles and finding a nice green spot without cars to
>>dodge.
>>
>
>
> In no way do Imean this to bash Canada, but Bill you have a very
> strange idea of what most of the US looks like. Sure, there are
> horribly congested areas. But outside of the Northeast coridor and
> California most of the large, congested metro areas sit in the middle
> of huge tracts of totally open land.
> So, while it may well be true that most people live in congested areas.
> Most areas are not congested.
>
I have been to most of the US and the good riding places are usually not
where the people (bikers included) live. To that end you would have to
load you bike into a car or truck and drive to the good riding areas.
Some metro areas are within range of some good country riding, but most
are not. Kansas and Nebraska are great for rural riding, even if kind of
flat, but how many people live there and have that in their back yard??

Yosemite is great but you have to 'car' to get there and then even it is
full of cars, so where is the benefit?
I was born in Chicago and used to bike all over the place in the 50's
but I went back in the 90's and everything was either paved over or way
too much traffic to ride in.

I guess what I should have said is that all the once good areas are
getting 'peopled' over and there are cars clogging what used to be good
bicycle rides.

Progress?

Bill Baka