The dream is back

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:52:39 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

Oh come on, what substance? Most of the arguments you get involved in
are based on extreme right-wing political cant or dogmatic and easily
disproved assertions.

You wouldn't know substance if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow.

So there you have it: no substance.

Yep, there you have it all right - your total inability to recognize
substance even when it is right in front of you. But Guy Chapman (Just zis
Guy, you know - yeah, I know he is a ****ing idiot for sure) loves to read
his own words and he hates to read mine. Notice how he never quotes me
hardly at all except for a phrase here and there. That is because he does
not want the reader to get the gist of what is being said. But can you
imagine emails with this jerk?

Back in the trollbox, you are too boring to be worth the trouble of
arguing with.

Ever the way of a coward and a scoundrel. He is afraid of words and does not
know how to parry them. He is a disgrace to the English and the English
language.

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 Washington University

Note all of the above g.d. nonsense he includes with each of his messages.
Like I said - what a ****ing idiot!

--
****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:50:31 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote in message :

Are you truly so dense that you have not noticed the almost compete
absence
of political type posts here on ARBR of late?

They have been more or less absent for me since I put you in the
killfile and started dropping most every thread in which you
participate, Ed.

Well, I sure as hell haven't missed you either, you moron! Many thanks for
keeping me in your ****ing kill file. I have never yet read anything of
yours on this group which ever made the slightest impression on me other
than your really quite remarkable stupidity. If I hadn't read you I would
not have believed an Englishman could be so g.d. stupid. No wonder you lost
your empire if everyone over there is like you. The sooner you become part
of the European Union the better off the world will be. Maybe you could take
up the French language when that happens as you sure as hell don't know
anything at all about the English language. And you don't know anything
worth knowing about recumbents either for that matter.

--
****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
Quoted me saying,
If we want to get the youth into bents we need to find a company that
will make a inexpensive bent that can be mass-marketed in the Meijers
and Wal-Marts of the nation.

Ed then continued noting that

I have been saying exactly this same thing for the past 25 years. There is
no reason on this earth why a recumbent can't be just as cheap as any
upright. But the reason they aren't is because the kids don't want them.
There is no mass market for them like there is for uprights. This may be a
chicken or egg type of conundrum as you point out, but I think the kids will
really have to want them before they can ever be made inexpensive like
uprights.

He is correct on this point. Every time we stop for a rest or other
break the kids gather around and are full of questions about our
bikes. They always ask "where can I get one of those?" However when we
explain that, while these bikes are available in the LBS in Grand
Rapids, that recumbents cost between $525 (EZ-1) to #5,200 (IT Rush),
you can see the wind go right out of their sails. The kids who are the
bike riders (those under 15) do not generally have that kind of money
and in an economy where the real incomes of their middle class parents
is actually declining is not going to be used to buy them a bike.
Although most of the recumbents sold in the US are manufactured here,
the bikes the kids are riding are made in Tiawan (especially by the
Giant bike-works). We used to have a pair of BikeEs. That design was
actually very simple and had they been made with the standard BB and
rear casettes (a layout similar to what they used in the FX) and
without the under-seat shock absorber (like the CT) the bike could
have been relatively inexpensive. If they had gotten the price down to
the $100 to $200 range and mass marketed them there might have been
bike that would have gotten the youth into recumbents. Right now I do
not see such a bike on the horizon.

Ed then went on to say,

Anyone who would care to read this can plainly see that it is mostly about
recumbents for kids and that is what I was exclusively focused on.

Ed's point was clearly made at this point, but then he went on to
engage in an ad-homineum attack on Mr. Sherman that was totally
un-necessary. He should have let his arguement stand on the strength
of its own logic. It would have made his position stonger. I agree
with him in the points above, but the rest of his post was
unnecessary.

I have been after Mr. Sherman for years (at least it seems like years) to
not be editing me so severely. It is unfair and it is a cheap way to make a
point. I never do that sort of thing as I feel I can always make my points
best by including the complete relevant passages. I trust the reader to make
sense out of what I write. I most especially do not like to pull single
sentences out of paragraphs nor do I like to have it done to me.

I think in paragraphs and I think most other folks do too. Therefore,
include the complete paragraph if it is not too long. That way the reader
can make up his own mind whether or not you are playing fair and honest.

The best poster on this newsgroup ever was Scott (Freewheeling). He was
always very generous about quoting others and then he would include the
entire post at the bottom of his post. I think he was able to do this
because he was sure and confident in his opinions and in his argument. He
never struck me as the type who just wanted to score cheap points. I know I
could be more scholarly about my posts too, but I need other scholars to
bring out the best in me. When I am constantly in the gutter I become a
gutter fighter - and it does become wearisome after awhile.

If you don't want to be a gutter fighter, Ed, then get out of the
gutter. If you do then your arguements will be more likely to be
accepted as being worth reading. When you attack people who disagree
with you rather than using clear thinking and data to back up your
arguements you actually weaken your position and come off as just
another crank. I am sure that you don't want to be considered to be
what you commonly call people who disagree with you.

[filters down]

What the hell are you responding to?
Only you and I know. No one else
knows...

Or cares.

since you have not included any
relevant passages...

Perhaps if there had actually been any relevant passages... :^)

Ken_in_Michgan wrote:

...
Ed's point was clearly made at this point, but then he went on to
engage in an ad-homineum attack on Mr. Sherman that was totally
un-necessary. He should have let his arguement stand on the strength
of its own logic. It would have made his position stonger. I agree
with him in the points above, but the rest of his post was
unnecessary....

There is quite a pattern of Mr. Dolan bringing my name up whenever a
thread drifts into a meta-discussion about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
He varies from being complementary to derogatory, often in the same
paragraph.

I rather suspect that Mr. Dolan is frustrated at not being able to
provoke me into either abandoning reasoned arguments and resorting to
name calling or abandoning the newsgroup like so many others that he
disagrees with.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

"Ken_in_Michgan" wrote in message
om...
[...]
Ed then went on to say,

Anyone who would care to read this can plainly see that it is mostly
about
recumbents for kids and that is what I was exclusively focused on.

Ed's point was clearly made at this point, but then he went on to
engage in an ad-homineum attack on Mr. Sherman that was totally
un-necessary. He should have let his arguement stand on the strength
of its own logic. It would have made his position stonger. I agree
with him in the points above, but the rest of his post was
unnecessary.

There is a long history between Mr. Sherman and myself and he knows full
well the nature of my complaint against him. It is real easy to score cheap
points on Usenet when you can edit posts to suit yourself. Believe me,
whatever I do or say about Mr. Sherman is quite necessary.

I have been after Mr. Sherman for years (at least it seems like years) to
not be editing me so severely. It is unfair and it is a cheap way to make
a
point. I never do that sort of thing as I feel I can always make my
points
best by including the complete relevant passages. I trust the reader to
make
sense out of what I write. I most especially do not like to pull single
sentences out of paragraphs nor do I like to have it done to me.

I think in paragraphs and I think most other folks do too. Therefore,
include the complete paragraph if it is not too long. That way the reader
can make up his own mind whether or not you are playing fair and honest.

The best poster on this newsgroup ever was Scott (Freewheeling). He was
always very generous about quoting others and then he would include the
entire post at the bottom of his post. I think he was able to do this
because he was sure and confident in his opinions and in his argument. He
never struck me as the type who just wanted to score cheap points. I know
I
could be more scholarly about my posts too, but I need other scholars to
bring out the best in me. When I am constantly in the gutter I become a
gutter fighter - and it does become wearisome after awhile.

If you don't want to be a gutter fighter, Ed, then get out of the
gutter. If you do then your arguements will be more likely to be
accepted as being worth reading. When you attack people who disagree
with you rather than using clear thinking and data to back up your
arguements you actually weaken your position and come off as just
another crank. I am sure that you don't want to be considered to be
what you commonly call people who disagree with you.

I don't give a hoot if people disagree with me. It is HOW they disagree with
me that matters. I am not overly concerned about getting any message across
to anyone either, but I am concerned about taking down a few loud mouth
jackasses who infest this group to the detriment of all. They pontificate
like asses and so I pontificate right back at them, only more so.

It is a pleasure to have a reasonable discussion with gentlemen and scholars
wherein there is disagreement that can be fine tuned that leads to clarity
of thinking and a better outcome than when entered into. Alas, that is not
the way ARBR works. In two seconds flat it is nothing but invective and name
calling.

I like to rise to the occasion when I encounter an intelligent
correspondent, but when I encounter the reverse I am determined to meet him
on his own ground. Otherwise, idiots always get the last word. All that is
necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. No thanks. I
will stoop however low to meet the scumbags eye to eye even if they are
lower than a snake.

The fact is that there are very few on this group that can take being
disagreed with. They are not use to intellectual discussion. Because they
are such asses about everything, it is my pleasure to tell them where to get
off. I am resigned to being permanently in the gutter here on ARBR. I will
reserve my better self for other venues.

I see my role here on ARBR as the eternal Watchman guarding the sacred
precincts of ARBR against all the assholes, morons, idiots and scumbags who
would otherwise invade the group. I am your first line of defense in the
everlasting war of the civilized against the barbarians at the gate.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. I leave it to the readers of ARBR as to whether or not I am a crank.
Sometimes I do effect that role for purposes of my own, but at other times I
think anyone would be hard put to classify me as a crank. In any event, I
leave that to the discernement of the reader.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Ken_in_Michgan wrote:

...
Ed's point was clearly made at this point, but then he went on to
engage in an ad-homineum attack on Mr. Sherman that was totally
un-necessary. He should have let his arguement stand on the strength
of its own logic. It would have made his position stonger. I agree
with him in the points above, but the rest of his post was
unnecessary....

There is quite a pattern of Mr. Dolan bringing my name up whenever a
thread drifts into a meta-discussion about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. He
varies from being complementary to derogatory, often in the same
paragraph.

Mr. Sherman knows full well all the sins that he is guilty of committing
here on ARBR, most especially with respect to me. If I thought he was a
stupid person I would let it go, but since we all know he is not a stupid
person I will hold him to account every time he missteps. Despite what he
may think about himself, he is not infallible and I am here to point that
out to him.

The bottom line for me with Mr. Sherman is that I don't trust him. That
being the case, I am damn careful never to compliment him overly much, but I
do like to occasionally give credit where credit is due. That is something
that Mr. Sherman has never done in his entire life here on ARBR. He is
almost inhuman that way.

I rather suspect that Mr. Dolan is frustrated at not being able to provoke
me into either abandoning reasoned arguments and resorting to name calling
or abandoning the newsgroup like so many others that he disagrees with.

I believe we have had our name calling episodes from time to time. And I for
one am not enamored of your "reasoned arguments" as has been demonstrated
many times here on ARBR. Those who have left this group for whatever reason
we are well rid of. Let us hope they never come back.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
PS. I leave it to the readers of ARBR as to whether or not I am a crank....

Square taper, ISIS, Octalink, Ashtabula, cottered, or pinch bolt?

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message
...
[filters down]

What the hell are you responding to?
Only you and I know. No one else
knows...

Or cares.

since you have not included any
relevant passages...

Perhaps if there had actually been any relevant passages... :^)

No attributions, no brains, just another ****ing ARBR idiot. Why the hell
didn't one of those Florida hurricanes blow you to kingdom come so we could
be rid of you and your petty flogging posts.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Ken_in_Michgan" wrote in message
om...
Edward Dolan
Quoted me saying,
If we want to get the youth into bents we need to find a company that
will make a inexpensive bent that can be mass-marketed in the Meijers
and Wal-Marts of the nation.

Ed then continued noting that

I have been saying exactly this same thing for the past 25 years. There
is
no reason on this earth why a recumbent can't be just as cheap as any
upright. But the reason they aren't is because the kids don't want them.
There is no mass market for them like there is for uprights. This may be
a
chicken or egg type of conundrum as you point out, but I think the kids
will
really have to want them before they can ever be made inexpensive like
uprights.

He is correct on this point. Every time we stop for a rest or other
break the kids gather around and are full of questions about our
bikes. They always ask "where can I get one of those?" However when we
explain that, while these bikes are available in the LBS in Grand
Rapids, that recumbents cost between $525 (EZ-1) to #5,200 (IT Rush),
you can see the wind go right out of their sails. The kids who are the
bike riders (those under 15) do not generally have that kind of money
and in an economy where the real incomes of their middle class parents
is actually declining is not going to be used to buy them a bike.
Although most of the recumbents sold in the US are manufactured here,
the bikes the kids are riding are made in Tiawan (especially by the
Giant bike-works). We used to have a pair of BikeEs. That design was
actually very simple and had they been made with the standard BB and
rear casettes (a layout similar to what they used in the FX) and
without the under-seat shock absorber (like the CT) the bike could
have been relatively inexpensive. If they had gotten the price down to
the $100 to $200 range and mass marketed them there might have been
bike that would have gotten the youth into recumbents. Right now I do
not see such a bike on the horizon. ...

Ken, if we could somehow create a fair playing field between uprights and
recumbents with respect to cost, then we could find out which type of bike
kids would prefer. The cost is so disparate now that it is impossible to
compare them. I agree that kids and their parents simply cannot afford these
very expensive recumbent bikes.

Frankly, I would be quite curious as to which style of bike kids would
choose if cost were not a factor. It is not a forgone conclusion either way.
I would bet that most kids would still choose their uprights for various
reasons, but I think there would be some that would choose recumbents.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota