Training or Plain Riding?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:53:33 -0800, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything else,
can remove all risks from life.

Think of the children! Please, won't someone please think of the
children?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:27:49 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

JT is perfectly entitled to his
opinion based on his observations, someone else is just as entitled to
their opinion, and it's just as valid, or even more so since I'm
betting the other person has seen even more racing than JT, but both
are just opinions at this point since noone has any hard scientific
studies to back their argument.

But one is true and the other is not.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:11:57 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

Especially in JT's case I avoided the personal comments until long
after barrage after barrage of personal attacks from him.

A barage of personal attacks? Hahaha.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:47:18 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:53:33 -0800, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything else,
can remove all risks from life.

Think of the children! Please, won't someone please think of the
children?


http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

On Dec 14, 7:48*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:27:49 -0800 (PST), Bill C

wrote:
JT is perfectly entitled to his
opinion based on his observations, someone else is just as entitled to
their opinion, and it's just as valid, or even more so since I'm
betting the other person has seen even more racing than JT, but both
are just opinions at this point since noone has any hard scientific
studies to back their argument.

But one is true and the other is not.

Yep that is true. One will fail more than the other, but we have no
real hard evidence of which, and in what magnitude, or what types.
I have a ton of snarky comments, but none are worth making JT. What
is, is, and I wish you well.
Bill C

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:23:00 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:

. One will fail more than the other, but we have no
real hard evidence of which, and in what magnitude, or what types.

You don't think tens or hundred of thousands of days of racing forks
of either material with almost no catastropic failures is evidence?

On Dec 14, 5:26*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:23:00 -0800 (PST), Bill C

wrote:
. One will fail more than the other, but we have no
real hard evidence of which, and in what magnitude, or what types.

You don't think tens or hundred of thousands of days of racing forks
of either material with almost no catastropic failures is evidence?

With a steel fork the you will see some visible cracks and flexing
over time. Even a steel fork that has been crashed and straightened
there is little chance of catastrophic failure.

In article ,
RonSonic wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:47:18 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:53:33 -0800, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

I do not understand why people believe the Government, or anything else,
can remove all risks from life.

Think of the children! Please, won't someone please think of the
children?


http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

Yep, it is you. Cool.

That link is a good one, by the way. I'm so tired of hearing about people who
won't let their kids do anything because "It isn't safe out there." We learned to
ride bikes without helmets and pads. At least the skateboard kids are moving away
from all the protection when they street skate.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:39*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *I guess that calling people who disagree with you "Stalinist" or
"Maoist" is
different, eh, Bill? That's not "arrogance and intolerant" in the least.

Especially in JT's case I avoided the personal comments until long
after barrage after barrage of personal attacks from him. Maoist or
Stalinist isn't a personal attack it's a description of a political
philosophy, a mindset, and an approach to people and issues.

But when it *doesn not apply* it *is* a personal attack. Sad but true.

I find JT's consitent and high volume accusations of mental health
issues for eberyone who disagrees with him to be incredibly offensive
from someone as intelligent and educated as he is. It's clearly a
tactic, and it's a traditional one for that school. Was used
extensively for the whole of their times in power, and is still being
used somewhat to silence anyone who disagreed.'
IMO my assertion that he is of that political philosophy could be
wrong,

It is.

but I will stand by him holding many of their beliefs and using
one of their most offensive, and damaging tactics.

Saying that a position you have is nonsense? Sorry, no.

It's pretty damned tough to force me to go personal, and I still
regret some of the personal crap you and I have exchanged because it
shouldn't be that way on almost any issues.

Bill, in this group and via email, you kept up a relentless hammering of me to
"accept responsibility" for things that you believe "The Left" are at fault for. I'd
respond reasonbly and rationally, refuting your points. You just kept it up, changing
the subject every mail or post (because you seem to type every single thing that
comes into your head and, unfortunately, that includes a lot of blaming "the Left").
Well, oddly enough, I got tired of it. There was a point where it was *no longer
friendly debate* and more a matter of scapegoating and bashing. You don't know when
to stop. We've been through all of the "I'm a moderate" and "I'm open minded" stuff
to no avail. It's simple: when you don't agree with someone, you immediately launch
into the "elitist pinhead" routine, followed by "Stalinist/Maoist" and "re-education
camps." Last, but far from least, it goes to the standard "You're all in lock step" /
"the Borg." People like John and me (and several others) case on you because of those
things - you then dig your heels in and play the victim. That's all dead standard
Nixonian tactics.

I'll say it right he I think you're a good guy and I think you do a lot of good
things. But when I read the same things (Stalinist, etc.) from you over and again, I
take exception to it and will point that out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
hizark21 wrote:

On Dec 13, 9:03*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article
,

*hizark21 wrote:

*Carbon fiber wheel are safer
because the spoke and hub structure will prevent the wheel from simply
breaking in half. You will have to replace the wheel. But you will be
able to stop safely.

* *When did aluminum rim and stainless spoked wheels start breaking in
half? I must have missed that.

Excuse me, but stainless steel spokes break in half often...
Aluminum rim do, but on rare occasions.

Yes, spokes do break (usually at the elbow) and rims do break on occasion but that
isn't what you said above. You seem to be implying that non-CF wheels break in half.
Anyway, every time I've seen a spoke break or a rim crack, the rider has been able to
stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml4HN3B51kc

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?