C'dale Lefty too stiff?

Quoted message said:

I just bought a Cannondale Rush 600. It seems like (it would be) a

I am sorry to hear that. My condolences.

Quoted message said:

great bike, but I can't get the fork right. I'm running it at the
recommended pressure for my weight - ie. 110 psi for my 160 lb weight.
But it feels really stiff.

That seems odd, but it is a lefty. Take the psi down to 90.

Quoted message said:

I'm riding a large bike, so I'm light for the bike - would it help if I
went with a softer "negative spring", or should I just use a lower
pressure?

I think the spring will effect your rebound.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

Ride-A-Lot said:

Quoted message said:

I just bought a Cannondale Rush 600. It seems like (it would be) a

I am sorry to hear that. My condolences.

Quoted message said:

great bike, but I can't get the fork right. I'm running it at the
recommended pressure for my weight - ie. 110 psi for my 160 lb
weight. But it feels really stiff.

That seems odd, but it is a lefty. Take the psi down to 90.

Quoted message said:

I'm riding a large bike, so I'm light for the bike - would it help
if I went with a softer "negative spring", or should I just use a
lower pressure?

I think the spring will effect your rebound.

"Affect" is the proper term, unless you mean that his spring will bring
about the rebound.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

Ride-A-Lot said:

Quoted message said:

I just bought a Cannondale Rush 600. It seems like (it would be) a

I am sorry to hear that. My condolences.

Quoted message said:

great bike, but I can't get the fork right. I'm running it at the
recommended pressure for my weight - ie. 110 psi for my 160 lb
weight. But it feels really stiff.

That seems odd, but it is a lefty. Take the psi down to 90.

Quoted message said:

I'm riding a large bike, so I'm light for the bike - would it help
if I went with a softer "negative spring", or should I just use a
lower pressure?

I think the spring will effect your rebound.

"Affect" is the proper term, unless you mean that his spring will bring
about the rebound.

yes, thank you.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

Phil Lee said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm riding a large bike, so I'm light for the bike - would it help
if I went with a softer "negative spring", or should I just use a
lower pressure?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the spring will effect your rebound.

Quoted message said:

"Affect" is the proper term, unless you mean that his spring will
bring about the rebound.

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and effect
with impact. That's what the news folks do because they don't know
which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom as in "For Who
the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks think that is the
title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you turn with such
problems?

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

I just bought a Cannondale Rush 600

HAHAHAHAHA!

JD

Quoted message said:

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and effect
with impact. That's what the news folks do because they don't know
which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom as in "For Who
the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks think that is the
title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you turn with such
problems?

You never hear ``For who the Bell tolls'' because it's a register conflict,
the fronted ``for'' being formal (``Who the bell tolls for'' would be okay)
and the ``who'' as prepositional object informal.

Other than that, ``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.'' It's also
much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, by people
very worried about which is right but unable to tell which is called for.

Thus you see in publications, ``The Ambassador, whom we hope will arrive at
ten, ...''

Just use ``who'' if you can't tell.

--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Phil Lee said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm riding a large bike, so I'm light for the bike - would it help
> if I went with a softer "negative spring", or should I just use a
> lower pressure?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the spring will effect your rebound.

Quoted message said:

"Affect" is the proper term, unless you mean that his spring will
bring about the rebound.

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and effect
with impact. That's what the news folks do because they don't know
which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom as in "For Who
the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks think that is the
title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you turn with such
problems?

Ghostbusters!

--
Michael Press

Ron Hardin said:

Quoted message said:

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and
effect with impact. That's what the news folks do because they
don't know which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom as
in "For Who the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks
think that is the title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you
turn with such problems?

You never hear ``For who the Bell tolls'' because it's a register
conflict, the fronted ``for'' being formal (``Who the bell tolls
for'' would be okay) and the ``who'' as prepositional object informal.

Other than that, ``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.'' It's
also much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, by
people
very worried about which is right but unable to tell which is called
for.

Thus you see in publications, ``The Ambassador, whom we hope will
arrive at ten, ...''

Just use ``who'' if you can't tell.

Overcorrection has begun to bug me more than just being plain wrong in the
first place. "Bring the big adjustable wrench for Tim and I," usually
results in a hurled big adjustable wrench at the shop.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Ron Hardin" wrote: (clip)``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.''
It's also much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's called "hypercorrection." The oldest example I can recall (yes, I'm
old) was Henry Aldridge, on the radio, who always said, "Are you speaking to
I, Mother?"

My parents were Yiddish, as were most of their friends. I still remember a
man who would answer the phone with, "Zu whom am I speaking?"

In article
<[email hidden]
t>,

Leo Lichtman said:

"Ron Hardin" wrote: (clip)``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.''
It's also much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's called "hypercorrection." The oldest example I can recall (yes, I'm
old) was Henry Aldridge, on the radio, who always said, "Are you speaking to
I, Mother?"

My parents were Yiddish, as were most of their friends. I still remember a
man who would answer the phone with, "Zu whom am I speaking?"

As in `So, whom am I speaking to?' Correct if stilted;
ignoring the dangling preposition. Someone whose first
language keeps noun case scrupulously reconciled will seek
out the equivalents in English.

--
Michael Press

Ron Hardin said:

Quoted message said:

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and
effect with impact. That's what the news folks do because they
don't know which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom
as in "For Who the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks
think that is the title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you
turn with such problems?

Quoted message said:

You never hear "For who the Bell tolls" because it's a register
conflict, the fronted "for" being formal ("Who the bell tolls for"
would be okay) and the "who" as prepositional object informal.

So are a lot of other botched constructs but they don't convey the
message as well as the correct form. As to "For Who the Bell Tolls"
you may think so but I have heard it.

Quoted message said:

Other than that, "whom" can pretty much be written "who." It's also
much safer, because most actual uses of "whom" are wrong, by people
very worried about which is right but unable to tell which is called
for.

That my be your perception but the places where "whom" belongs are. to
one who cares about usage, trivial to recognize and it makes a clearer
sentence than one in which an awkward choice of words appears.

Quoted message said:

Thus you see in publications, "The Ambassador, whom we hope will
arrive at ten, ..."

That's as stupid as the press not knowing the difference between
"momentarily" and "any moment", as in "the president will be here
momentarily"... oh, it's too bad he can't stay for a bit. The word
has been misused so often that the dictionary has picked it up as an
alternate (correct) use, just as "carrot and stick" has been replaced
by "carrot or stick" the image never having been understood by many.

Quoted message said:

Just use "who" if you can't tell.

Quoted message said:

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

But they will if you follow your advice about "who".

Jobst Brandt

What's up?

Phil Lee said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and
effect with impact. That's what the news folks do because they
don't know which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom
as in "For Who the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks
think that is the title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you
turn with such problems?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You never hear "For who the Bell tolls" because it's a register
conflict, the fronted "for" being formal ("Who the bell tolls
for" would be okay) and the "who" as prepositional object
informal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Other than that, "whom" can pretty much be written "who." It's
also much safer, because most actual uses of "whom" are wrong, by
people very worried about which is right but unable to tell which
is called for.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus you see in publications, "The Ambassador, whom we hope will
arrive at ten, ..."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just use "who" if you can't tell.

Quoted message said:

Overcorrection has begun to bug me more than just being plain wrong
in the first place. "Bring the big adjustable wrench for Tim and
I," usually results in a hurled big adjustable wrench at the shop.

Ooh. that one has a double whammy, because people have been so drilled
to not say "me, me, me" that they avoid the word. They believe using
"I" or "myself" instead, also sounds more erudite.

Edumacation in the USA is not in good shape.

Jobst Brandt

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]
t>,

Leo Lichtman said:

"Ron Hardin" wrote: (clip)``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.''
It's also much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's called "hypercorrection." The oldest example I can recall (yes, I'm
old) was Henry Aldridge, on the radio, who always said, "Are you speaking to
I, Mother?"

My parents were Yiddish, as were most of their friends. I still remember a
man who would answer the phone with, "Zu whom am I speaking?"

As in `So, whom am I speaking to?' Correct if stilted;
ignoring the dangling preposition. Someone whose first
language keeps noun case scrupulously reconciled will seek
out the equivalents in English.

"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

And speaking while we're on the topic of hypercorrection: ever hear
someone say something like, "To where are you going to?" Nice try,
but...NO!

ok, I'm done.
\\paul

Paul Hobson wrote:
[fellow grammar nerds snipped]

Quoted message said:

"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

If you listen carefully, you can hear me zipping up the ol' trusty flame
suit. 🙂
\\paul

Amazing. 14 posts in the thread (thus far), and only one offers any
actionable advice.

SYJ

PS, I don't know the lefty, but I'd say start out by dropping the
pressure. Changing out the negative spring (you'd want to change to a
stiffer spring to soften the ride) will primarily IMPACT the fork's
ability to respond to initial bump force (overcome stiction).

Quoted message said:

What's up?

He's complimenting you on your purchase.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Yes, this thread has truely become the Eagle's Nest of grammar Nazis.

Paul Hobson said:

"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

Since when are they necessary? Dangling prepositions are things up with
we should not put.

Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Microsoft Word:
Telling Americans all they need to know about the language they claim
to speak, since 1828.

========================================================================
Microsoft Word Grammar Checker Are No Good, Scholar Conclude

By BROCK READ

If you've ever used Microsoft Word, chances are you've seen that
jagged green line appear beneath something you've written -- scolding
you for drafting a fragmented sentence, maybe, or for slipping into the
passive voice. That's Microsoft's grammar-checking technology at work.

But how much good does the grammar checker actually do? Precious
little, according to Sandeep Krishnamurthy, an associate professor of
marketing and e-commerce at the University of Washington. After
experimenting with the tool, Mr. Krishnamurthy concluded that it cannot
identify many basic grammatical faux pas -- like errors in
capitalization, punctuation, and verb tense.

Now he has dedicated himself to chronicling the grammar checker's
blind spots, and to persuading Microsoft to improve the tool.

On his Web site (http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check), Mr.
Krishnamurthy has posted evidence that he considers damning: a series
of examples of poor grammar the software considers passable. One reads:
"Marketing are bad for brand big and small. You Know What I am Saying?
It is no wondering that advertisings are bad for company in America,
Chicago and Germany."

Microsoft officials did not respond to calls for comment. But in a
statement released in response to Mr. Krishnamurthy's Web site, the
company argued that its grammar checker is a writing aid, not a
catchall. "The Word grammar checker is designed to catch the kinds of
errors that ordinary users make in normal writing situations," the
statement said.

For above-average writers, the software might pick up a grammatical
misstep or two, according to Mr. Krishnamurthy, but for subpar writers,
the tool is useless.

Mr. Krishnamurthy says many of his students are not native English
speakers and often struggle with the written word.

The grammar checker, he argues, impedes their efforts to improve their
writing -- by telling them that misconjugated verbs and poorly
structured sentences are perfectly fine.

The tool is so pernicious, he says, that Microsoft should either
improve it or ditch it. Mr. Krishnamurthy recommends that the software
more easily let users choose whether they want only basic guidance or
significant editing help. The current software allows users to pick
which types of grammatical errors they want identified, but Mr.
Krishnamurthy says that system is too complicated for many beginning
writers.

Some technical experts say that creating a better grammar checker
would be a tall order, but Mr. Krishnamurthy says the program just
needs to do a better job of telling writers how to use it. "I've heard
some techies say, You're holding us to too high a standard," he says,
"but I don't completely buy that."

Editor's note: The headline on this article cleared Microsoft's
grammar checker.

http://chronicle.com
Section: Information Technology
Volume 51, Issue 32, Page A29 '