Broken spokes...again

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(I wasn't stunned when Jobst leapt to the conclusion that
the original poster was constructing an elaborate fraud by
asking about some flat tires.)

I think you're exaggerating.

Quoted message said:

In any case, if you look back through this thread about
broken spokes, I think that you'll find that Jobst called
Jim a liar first--not because Jim lied, but because Jim
failed to put things the way that Jobst would. (Jim could
call Jobst's posts "lies of the second kind" with just as
much justification.)

I read that exchange carefully, and just reread it again. It seems

obvious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that "jim beam" was attempting to distort the truth. I'd agree with the
description of "lies of the second kind".

Quoted message said:

I'd say that the bar is in about the same place where it's
always been.

I think you've got personal issues with Jobst, and like "jim beam",

you're

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not above bending things to suit your needs.

Dear Peter,

I do have a personal issue with Jobst. I dislike his habit
of calling people liars. I hope that I exaggerate it and
that he mends it.

Would you agree that I'd be just as entitled to remark that
you seem to have personal issues with Jim Beam?

In any case, it would be silly for any of us to pretend that
we do not bend things to suit our positions.

But what do you feel I bent here? Something in the links to
the archives illustrating my point that you snipped from my
post?

I pointed out what you "bent" here. I'm not going to go all through your
"research" of the newsgroup archives, in fact, I think your preoccupation
borders on obsession, and I find it bizarre.

Quoted message said:

And would snipping such links be bending things to suit your
needs?

I think that you sincerely disagreed with me here, and that
you also disagree just as sincerely with Jim Beam on various
points.

In another current thread, I think that you were equally
sincere when your reply consisted of "Where did you get
this? I call BS."

But however sincere you are, are you getting closer to
arguing by calling other people liars than you really want
to be? That is what you were calling me, wasn't it, while
implying that you're above bending things to suit your
needs?

Perhaps I'm wrong, and you'll explain what I bent.

I use the term "BS", in its common meaning, which is that form of
expounding on subjects where the author is ignorant or misinformed. I felt
that term to be an accurate assesment of your views on directional tire
tread. I'm not calling you a liar, just ignorant and misinformed. In a
general sense, when claims are made for the superiority of a particular
product or feature, the onus of proof is on the claimer. I think you failed
that test. In conducting this "jihad", I think you're just being petty.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

yes, i call spades "spades". get over it.

Well, I've only attempted one substantive exchange with you. The net was
that you ducked out claiming lack of time. You seem to be more of an
anonymous hit & run type. Perhaps I may get a better grasp of your theories
when *your* book come out.

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

jim beam the sock puppetteer <[email hidden]> wrote:

<>>for a material that has no endurance limit - the op specified that these
<>>spokes are stainless steel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you suppose that, rather than just pretending it didn't happen, you
could answer Mark McMaster's questions when he calls you on this one, "tux
lover"?

sorry david, please be more specific. you don't agree that stainless
steel has no endurance limit?

Answer his questions. You've quietly ignored them many a time, sock boy.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

Peter Cole said:

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

yes, i call spades "spades". get over it.

Well, I've only attempted one substantive exchange with you. The net was
that you ducked out claiming lack of time. You seem to be more of an
anonymous hit & run type. Perhaps I may get a better grasp of your theories
when *your* book come out.

and i won't have too much time this week either - conference in l.a.,
but if you care to remind me what the question was, i'll try to answer.

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

jim beam the sock puppetteer <[email hidden]> wrote:

<>>for a material that has no endurance limit - the op specified that these
<>>spokes are stainless steel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you suppose that, rather than just pretending it didn't happen, you
could answer Mark McMaster's questions when he calls you on this one, "tux
lover"?

sorry david, please be more specific. you don't agree that stainless
steel has no endurance limit?

Answer his questions. You've quietly ignored them many a time, sock boy.

Dear David,

Perhaps you could let the rest of us in on what's bothering
you? That is, what question do you have in mind? You're so
busy sneering that you're ignoring Jim's polite question.

Carl Fogel

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell wrote:
>Do you suppose that, rather than just pretending it didn't happen, you
>could answer Mark McMaster's questions when he calls you on this one, "tux
>lover"?
sorry david, please be more specific. you don't agree that stainless
steel has no endurance limit?

Answer his questions. You've quietly ignored them many a time, sock boy.

sorry, i'm just a [censored] - what was the question?

You read the articles. If you actually plan to respond - which you don't,
this is just an evasion, of course - find 'em yourself with Google Groups
and reply.

But you aren't going to do that; you'll just ignore it again and go back
to grinding the Jobst axe.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

>David Damerell wrote:
>
>>Do you suppose that, rather than just pretending it didn't happen, you
>>could answer Mark McMaster's questions when he calls you on this one, "tux
>>lover"?
>
>sorry david, please be more specific. you don't agree that stainless
>steel has no endurance limit?

Answer his questions. You've quietly ignored them many a time, sock boy.

sorry, i'm just a [censored] - what was the question?

You read the articles. If you actually plan to respond - which you don't,
this is just an evasion, of course - find 'em yourself with Google Groups
and reply.

But you aren't going to do that; you'll just ignore it again and go back
to grinding the Jobst axe.

i'm not responding to vapor. post the links.

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You read the articles. If you actually plan to respond - which you don't,
this is just an evasion, of course - find 'em yourself with Google Groups
and reply.
But you aren't going to do that; you'll just ignore it again and go back
to grinding the Jobst axe.

i'm not responding to vapor.

Looks like I was right on the money.

They weren't vapour at the time; but you didn't respond to them then. Why?
Because you just want to grind the axe, not respond to any substantive
points.

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You read the articles. If you actually plan to respond - which you don't,
this is just an evasion, of course - find 'em yourself with Google Groups
and reply.
But you aren't going to do that; you'll just ignore it again and go back
to grinding the Jobst axe.

i'm not responding to vapor.

Looks like I was right on the money.

They weren't vapour at the time; but you didn't respond to them then. Why?
Because you just want to grind the axe, not respond to any substantive
points.

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.

Dear David,

Why are you so unwilling to let the rest of us know what the
questions are that have you prancing in glee?

So far, you're the one doing the dodging and ax-grinding,
not Jim and certainly not Mark McMaster.

Since you won't even say what the question is, you seem to
be expecting the rest of the world to go on a scavenger
hunt.

Carl Fogel

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You read the articles. If you actually plan to respond - which you don't,
this is just an evasion, of course - find 'em yourself with Google Groups
and reply.
But you aren't going to do that; you'll just ignore it again and go back
to grinding the Jobst axe.

i'm not responding to vapor.

Looks like I was right on the money.

They weren't vapour at the time; but you didn't respond to them then. Why?
Because you just want to grind the axe, not respond to any substantive
points.

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.

hmm. you won't post a link but /i'm/ the dodger... nice try david.
very passive agressive.

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.

hmm. you won't post a link but /i'm/ the dodger...

Yes. If you weren't a dodger, you would have answered them at the time.

Or we could just wait. Next time it comes up, next time he posts the
questions, you'll quietly slip away without answering, just like you did
every other time.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

4700's a limit- nashbar has a sale on double walls at half price.
to understand whatbthe lbs is doing you really need to be able to and
have on hands experience with this wheel before giving it to the LBS.
you cannot expect the LBS to give you $130 of labor for $35 work on a
wheel that needs replacing for $50. what happens more or less is that
the LBS: 1) figures you understand the situation, 2) ura gonna
understand eventually, or 3) ura dumb. The LBS is not usually in the
habit of customer nuerotic stress analysis or therapy unless the wheel
is worth more than $200 or they're bored.
the spokes inside hooks are a give away-is that area worn or
burnished? is the hub hole elongated and burredwith sharp edges?
ya gotta take it apart!
and do it yourself.
the idea that ura gonna run into a wheel magician at the LBS is
somewhat farfetched.
if you give a bent rim to the guy he's gonna wind those spokes tight
and then snap.

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.

hmm. you won't post a link but /i'm/ the dodger...

Yes. If you weren't a dodger, you would have answered them at the time.

Or we could just wait. Next time it comes up, next time he posts the
questions, you'll quietly slip away without answering, just like you did
every other time.

Dear David,

We are waiting--for you to tell us what you're chattering
about.

Carl Fogel

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

You can dodge all you like, but the one thing we'll never see you do is
answer Mark's questions.

hmm. you won't post a link but /i'm/ the dodger...

Yes. If you weren't a dodger, you would have answered them at the time.

Or we could just wait. Next time it comes up, next time he posts the
questions, you'll quietly slip away without answering, just like you did
every other time.

Z2V0IHNvbWUgdGhlcmFweQo=

jim beam said:

David Damerell said:

Or we could just wait. Next time it comes up, next time he posts the
questions, you'll quietly slip away without answering, just like you did
every other time.

Z2V0IHNvbWUgdGhlcmFweQo=

What's that, Czech for "I am a weasel"?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!