Can you make it to the market on a bike?

writes:

On Aug 2, 7:00 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
Wayne Pein writes:
Bill Z. wrote:

writes:

Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
city he rode.

Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is
one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
"discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading
some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the
U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many
newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising
with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it.
He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend
that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out
what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course,
Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post
because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove.


Is there an official vocabulary term for the act of describing a years-
old discussion in a totally biased way, and using that description as
a supposed "proof"?

The bias, alas, was all from you, but your penchant for re-writting
history is well known.

In Message-ID #1/1, Krygowski wrote (quoting
me):
: The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
: article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
: taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
: someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
: example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
: not be worth bothering about.
:
: Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
: nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
: avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
: fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
: response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
: of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
: "trivial".

You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
or _Newsweek_.

So as I said, Krygowski spins like crazy, and then tries to re-write
history as he just did. He's completely shameless about it, always
resorting to the "big lie" technique.

If not, I propose we coin the term "Zaumenism."

No need to coin a term - they already have one for what you produce
and it is called "spin", which is a polite term for lies.
snip

My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every
so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional
typists and don't always proof read ever[y]thing we post....

Usenet should be capitalized.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:


: The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
: article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
: taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
: someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
: example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
: not be worth bothering about.
:
: [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
: nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
: avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
: fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
: response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
: of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
: "trivial".

You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
or _Newsweek_.

Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh?
Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill.

Approximate circulation figures:

Bicycling magazine: 400,000
Popular Science: 1.5 million
ESPN magazine: 1.9 million
U.S. News : 2.0 million
Newsweek: 3.1 million
Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million
Time: 4.0 million
National Geographic: 5.4 million
Reader's Digest: 10.0 million
Parade magazine: 32 million

Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not
_the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just
like I said!

Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their
distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody
will look at a magazine with that much circulation!"

Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't
count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so!

You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-)

Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is
better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to
the right of the line?

- Frank Krygowski

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
the area to know why.

But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.

Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.

But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?

Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
the particular implementation.
Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
figment of your imagination.

Yo Billy - Not all of us live in Silly Cone Valley, much less
California. The CVC (not any other legislation) is NOT the arbiter of
right-of-way, which has developed over many centuries.

Tell that to a California judge if you get a ticket for a moving
violation while visiting. He may laugh at your silly name for the
region, but that won't get you out of a ticket, and he won't be amused
at your attitude regarding the CVC.

Until I ride or drive in California, I could care less about the CVC
and Caltrans design standards.

If you expect anyone living in California to agree with you, you should
show what in the CVC and Caltrans design standards you object to: we are
not required to use any bike lane that was not installed in conformance
to state standards.


"Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
"special" bicycle farcilities (sic).

Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to say.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

[Yawn]
[Yawn]

(i.e., he has no legitimate response)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
ROTFLMAO! You can't be serious. People drop upper case letters every
so often when typing usenet posts because most of us aren't professional
typists and don't always proof read ever[y]thing we post....

Usenet should be capitalized.

Acutally it should if anything be in all upper case although a variety
of forms are used.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt has one example (all upper case)
and http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg02039.html
has some in upper case and some in lower case. When used as an
adjective, this RFC uses lower case for the word "usenet", although
usage is not consistent. The IETF is the official standards
organization for the Internet, in case you don't know.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

: The only thing I told Frank I wouldn't bother reading was an
: article in Parade Magazine (or rather, I wouldn't bother
: taking the time to find a back issue). Frank claimed
: someone was promoting helmets, and I claimed that the
: example Frank gave of this "promotion" was so trivial as to
: not be worth bothering about.
:
: [FK:] Yes, I claimed they were promoting ONLY helmets, and saying
: nothing at all about proper, legal riding, or otherwise
: avoiding accidents, despite the fact that about 85% of child
: fatalities come from breaking simple traffic laws. In
: response, you did say a front-page article saying that on one
: of the largest circulation weekly magazines in the USA was
: "trivial".

You can find other examples where Krygowski used similar claims but
where no reference to Parade appeared. Note, however, how he took
this piece of advertising + fluff stuffed into Sunday newspapers and
blew it up into "one of the largest circulation weekly magazines in
the USA", which a reader not looking closely would confuse with _Time_
or _Newsweek_.

Ah! Lose one argument, so resurrect an old one to save face, eh?
Problem is, you were wrong then, too, Bill.

More spin from Krygowski! He made a bogus claim, was called on it with
documentation showing that he had been lying, so he then tries to blame
the messenger for telling him what he actually had said.


Approximate circulation figures:

Bicycling magazine: 400,000
Popular Science: 1.5 million
ESPN magazine: 1.9 million
U.S. News : 2.0 million
Newsweek: 3.1 million
Sports Illustrated: 3.3 million
Time: 4.0 million
National Geographic: 5.4 million
Reader's Digest: 10.0 million
Parade magazine: 32 million

An example of how to lie with statistics. Parade is a filler that
gets distributed with any number of newspapers. The others are
magazines that people explicitly buy. Just because Parade may be
distributed inside your favorite Sunday paper doesn't mean you want
it or read it. At least with the others, we know that someone contributing
to the magazine's circulation actually put down some hard cash for the
purpose of obtaining it.


Hmm. Looks like Parade actually does have one of the largest - if not
_the_ largest - magazine circulation numbers in the country. Just
like I said!

Looks like Krygowski is once again showing his general inability to
produce a single post where he didn't dissemble - a true Karl Rove
wannabe.

Bill claims this doesn't count. I suppose that's because their
distribution channel is different and unusually successful. "Nobody
will look at a magazine with that much circulation!"

More lies from Krygowski - he's assuming that Parade is actually read!
It simply has been more successful than some other newspaper-insert
magazines at getting itself inserted.

Likewise, he claims bike lane experiences outside San Francisco don't
count, because... um, well, I suppose because he says so!

Frank is lying once again, since I obviously mentioned bike lanes outside
of San Francisco (only mentioning San Francisco when Krygowski brought up
his strawmen about ill-maintained bike lanes he saw while visiting some
unspecified city, which he later claimed was Portland, but I had to
mention a specific city to get him to own up to it).

You're fun to watch, Bill. ;-)

That's nice ... too bad the way you continually make a fool of
yourself isn't nice to watch.

Now, can we get an explanation of why a white stripe on a roadway is
better than a wide lane, despite the fact that trash accumulates to
the right of the line?

Where's the trash? Certainly not around here. To be perfectly blunt,
Krygowski is lying as usual because that is all he knows how to do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein wrote:
wrote:
I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb
lanes without the magical paint stripe.
Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but
it does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there
isn't a bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by
passing cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires.

Bike lanes collect debris? Preposterous!

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ary/Debris.pdf (2.34 MB)

Fig 4 was interesting - you get the debris but at least the potholes
are out of your way.

But on balance I'd still rather do without the cycle lane - especially
with a 15-foot lane overall.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
the area to know why.
But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.

Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.

Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to
replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to
China, India and other low wage countries?

But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
HOV lanes.

Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?

Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?

That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

I will be checking Zaumen's posts for perfection in spelling and grammar
from now on.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com