Has anyone tried the Bigha?



Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:24:38 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So did you buy a Bigha? No? Join the crowd.

>
>
> Now I see the light. A 16 year old still fond of the logic of an 8
> year old. He must have been a winner a couple of years ago on the
> playground...
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:24:38 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So did you buy a Bigha? No? Join the crowd.

>
>
> Now I see the light. A 16 year old still fond of the logic of an 8
> year old. He must have been a winner a couple of years ago on the
> playground...
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...



You just can't answer a simple question, can you? Did you buy a Bigha?

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
 
Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>I suspect it only appears we are being defensive because you are so
>>>offensive about the company itself and not the bike.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>So you are quite happy to buy something at an inflated price from a
>>group of people who have previously walked away from contracts,
>>warranties and product support?

>
>
> If its a decent bike sure, there's more to it than the price. I purchased
> the Vision and lost 50 pounds, lost another 20 so far on the Baron and now
> blow away most other bikers.
>
> If I can do even a fraction of that on a BigHa then the price of the bike is
> dirt cheap.
>
>


If your primary criteria is losing weight, you should definitely buy a
Bigha. Peddling a heavy bike like a Bigha burns a lot more calories then
a light one like your Baron Optima. Put a few bricks in your $275 Bigha
bags (you'll probably want to use gold plated ones) to make it an even
better value.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
 
Larry Varney wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>
>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said anything about the
>>> BiGHA being of good value or not. Period. I have never defended it.
>>> Period. I have never argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
>>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I have written
>>> what I have not, then how are we to interpret that? Simple mistakes,
>>> repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you
>>> going to own up to?

>>
>>
>>
>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders and open your
>> ears.
>> Here it is once again:
>>

>
> The question was asked of you. Here it is again:
> If you are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I have
> written what I have not, then how are we to interpret that? Simple
> mistakes, repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which
> are you going to own up to?
>
>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the Bigha'. Just what
>> are you doing? Do you think it is worth $3000? Would you buy one for
>> $3000? These aren't hard questions.
>>
>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>
>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the
>> Bigha good
>> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are
>> about.
>> Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why don't
>> you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup to
>> lost
>> souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of
>> anything
>> either.
>>

>
> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are used to
> judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have pointed that
> out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
> yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
> again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds per
> dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the relative
> weights of those criteria, that will vary among the individuals. Racers
> will care more about the weight, for example, than the color. Components
> used is also another variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff,
> as they would just install some pedals and things they already have.
> Some people value the ready-to-ride aspects of a delivered product,
> rather than having to assemble it themselves.
> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a bike.
> This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I can
> cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in another post.
>


So what are these criteria? There is what we know about the Bigha: Very
heavy - negative criteria; very expensive - negative criteria; poor
reputation of the people making it - negative criteria. What positive
criteria do you know about the Bigha that outweighs these negatives?

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
 
Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Because if you didn't give a fair and impartial review, you wouldn't be
>>working for Consumer Reports for long. Consumer Reports, because they
>>buy the product and are not dependent on the manufacturers for free
>>products, can insist on fair reviews. Who does that for recumbents?

>
>
> So what you are saying is anything a reviewer who receives free bikes is
> meaningless?
>
>


Not completely meaningless but you have to take into account that they
can not be too critical or make a no buy recommendation.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
 
Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said anything about the
>>>> BiGHA being of good value or not. Period. I have never defended it.
>>>> Period. I have never argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
>>>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I have written
>>>> what I have not, then how are we to interpret that? Simple mistakes,
>>>> repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you
>>>> going to own up to?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders and open
>>> your ears.
>>> Here it is once again:
>>>

>>
>> The question was asked of you. Here it is again:
>> If you are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I
>> have written what I have not, then how are we to interpret that?
>> Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications?
>> Which are you going to own up to?
>>
>>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the Bigha'. Just what
>>> are you doing? Do you think it is worth $3000? Would you buy one for
>>> $3000? These aren't hard questions.
>>>
>>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>>
>>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the
>>> Bigha good
>>> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are
>>> about.
>>> Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why
>>> don't
>>> you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup
>>> to lost
>>> souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of
>>> anything
>>> either.
>>>

>>
>> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are used
>> to judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have pointed
>> that out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted
>> them. And yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
>> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
>> again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds
>> per dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the
>> relative weights of those criteria, that will vary among the
>> individuals. Racers will care more about the weight, for example, than
>> the color. Components used is also another variable - some people
>> would opt for cheaper stuff, as they would just install some pedals
>> and things they already have. Some people value the ready-to-ride
>> aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to assemble it
>> themselves.
>> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a bike.
>> This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I
>> can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in another post.
>>

>
> So what are these criteria? There is what we know about the Bigha: Very
> heavy - negative criteria; very expensive - negative criteria; poor
> reputation of the people making it - negative criteria. What positive
> criteria do you know about the Bigha that outweighs these negatives?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove


There are many criteria for bikes, and the weight given to each
varies depending on who is doing the judging. How did you pick your
bikes, for instance? Was it simply a matter of dividing the price in
dollars by the weight in pounds? Not that this is a bad way of looking
at things - you're entitled to make your decisions based on the criteria
that you consider important.
By the way, "very heavy" is not a critiera, but a judgement. So is
"very expensive". Weight and price are criteria, and apparently the only
ones in existence to some people. I have mentioned several others
numerous times over the past 20 or so posts. Did you miss them? Dolan
apparently has a problem reading what is written, words and statements
and all, and instead concentrates on what he infers are "intentions"
instead. Perhaps you and he share that problem.
Anyway - you seem fixated on this BiGHA bike, demanding that people
come up with reasons why they would or wouldn't buy one. Why is that? I
know of one other person who has taken on a vendetta against a
manufacturer, in this other case it was pedals, and it all came down to
his being miffed that he wasn't give a free set. So now he trashes them
constantly. And, of course, he has never used them.
Could this be the source of your problem with the BiGHA? Isn't it
enough just to point out all of the bad things you noticed when you rode
it? Why do you demand that others provide you with their evaluations of
the bike?
--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Mark Leuck wrote:
>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Because if you didn't give a fair and impartial review, you wouldn't be
>>> working for Consumer Reports for long. Consumer Reports, because they
>>> buy the product and are not dependent on the manufacturers for free
>>> products, can insist on fair reviews. Who does that for recumbents?

>>
>>
>>
>> So what you are saying is anything a reviewer who receives free bikes is
>> meaningless?
>>
>>

>
> Not completely meaningless but you have to take into account that they
> can not be too critical or make a no buy recommendation.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
>
>


Yes, talk is cheap, especially when you don't have a clue. Who has
told you that reviewers cannot make a "no buy recommendation"? No one?
That's what I thought. And who told you that they "can't be too
critical"? No one? Boy, I'm on a roll here!
(This answering your own questions really saves time, doesn't it?)

Here's the thing, Lorenzo, that might give your OPINION some value.
Find us a review, or make that several, of a particular item that is
incontrovertibly awful, that should be taken off the market by the
government, that cannot be justified for sale to anyone of any age, and
if those reviews say nice things about it, advise you to not only buy
one but several as Christmas gifts, and that the fatal flaws are nothing
to even worry yourself about, then your OPINION might be something other
than a biased bit of unsustantiated prejudice.
I didn't think so.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
Larry Varney wrote:

> Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>
>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said anything about
>>>>> the
>>>>> BiGHA being of good value or not. Period. I have never defended it.
>>>>> Period. I have never argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you are
>>>>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I have written
>>>>> what I have not, then how are we to interpret that? Simple mistakes,
>>>>> repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you
>>>>> going to own up to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders and open
>>>> your ears.
>>>> Here it is once again:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The question was asked of you. Here it is again:
>>> If you are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I
>>> have written what I have not, then how are we to interpret that?
>>> Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate
>>> fabrications? Which are you going to own up to?
>>>
>>>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the Bigha'. Just what
>>>> are you doing? Do you think it is worth $3000? Would you buy one for
>>>> $3000? These aren't hard questions.
>>>>
>>>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>>>
>>>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the
>>>> Bigha good
>>>> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are
>>>> about.
>>>> Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why
>>>> don't
>>>> you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup
>>>> to lost
>>>> souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of
>>>> anything
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are used
>>> to judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have pointed
>>> that out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted
>>> them. And yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
>>> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
>>> again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds
>>> per dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the
>>> relative weights of those criteria, that will vary among the
>>> individuals. Racers will care more about the weight, for example,
>>> than the color. Components used is also another variable - some
>>> people would opt for cheaper stuff, as they would just install some
>>> pedals and things they already have. Some people value the
>>> ready-to-ride aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to
>>> assemble it themselves.
>>> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a
>>> bike. This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If
>>> not, I can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in
>>> another post.
>>>

>>
>> So what are these criteria? There is what we know about the Bigha:
>> Very heavy - negative criteria; very expensive - negative criteria;
>> poor reputation of the people making it - negative criteria. What
>> positive criteria do you know about the Bigha that outweighs these
>> negatives?
>>
>> Lorenzo L. Love
>> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

>
>
> There are many criteria for bikes, and the weight given to each varies
> depending on who is doing the judging. How did you pick your bikes, for
> instance? Was it simply a matter of dividing the price in dollars by the
> weight in pounds? Not that this is a bad way of looking at things -
> you're entitled to make your decisions based on the criteria that you
> consider important.
> By the way, "very heavy" is not a critiera, but a judgement. So is
> "very expensive". Weight and price are criteria, and apparently the only
> ones in existence to some people. I have mentioned several others
> numerous times over the past 20 or so posts. Did you miss them? Dolan
> apparently has a problem reading what is written, words and statements
> and all, and instead concentrates on what he infers are "intentions"
> instead. Perhaps you and he share that problem.
> Anyway - you seem fixated on this BiGHA bike, demanding that people
> come up with reasons why they would or wouldn't buy one. Why is that? I
> know of one other person who has taken on a vendetta against a
> manufacturer, in this other case it was pedals, and it all came down to
> his being miffed that he wasn't give a free set. So now he trashes them
> constantly. And, of course, he has never used them.
> Could this be the source of your problem with the BiGHA? Isn't it
> enough just to point out all of the bad things you noticed when you rode
> it? Why do you demand that others provide you with their evaluations of
> the bike?


You're up to around 26 posts adamantly defending this bike while
pretending not to, but you can't say why anyone should buy one. There
are several good reason not to, it costs twice as much or more then
comparative bikes in it's class for one, but why should anyone buy it?

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
 
Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Read what I have written, Dolan. I have NEVER said anything
>>>>>> about the
>>>>>> BiGHA being of good value or not. Period. I have never defended it.
>>>>>> Period. I have never argued for the purchase of it. Period. If you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I have written
>>>>>> what I have not, then how are we to interpret that? Simple mistakes,
>>>>>> repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate fabrications? Which are you
>>>>>> going to own up to?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lorenzo has already answered you. Take off your blinders and open
>>>>> your ears.
>>>>> Here it is once again:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question was asked of you. Here it is again:
>>>> If you are reading what I have posted on ARBR, and yet you claim I
>>>> have written what I have not, then how are we to interpret that?
>>>> Simple mistakes, repeatedly, on your part? Or deliberate
>>>> fabrications? Which are you going to own up to?
>>>>
>>>>> "I count twenty posts where you 'aren't defending the Bigha'. Just
>>>>> what
>>>>> are you doing? Do you think it is worth $3000? Would you buy one for
>>>>> $3000? These aren't hard questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lorenzo L. Love"
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the
>>>>> Bigha good
>>>>> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are
>>>>> about.
>>>>> Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why
>>>>> don't
>>>>> you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup
>>>>> to lost
>>>>> souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of
>>>>> anything
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are
>>>> used to judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have
>>>> pointed that out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has
>>>> counted them. And yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
>>>> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
>>>> again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds
>>>> per dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the
>>>> relative weights of those criteria, that will vary among the
>>>> individuals. Racers will care more about the weight, for example,
>>>> than the color. Components used is also another variable - some
>>>> people would opt for cheaper stuff, as they would just install some
>>>> pedals and things they already have. Some people value the
>>>> ready-to-ride aspects of a delivered product, rather than having to
>>>> assemble it themselves.
>>>> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a
>>>> bike. This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If
>>>> not, I can cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in
>>>> another post.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what are these criteria? There is what we know about the Bigha:
>>> Very heavy - negative criteria; very expensive - negative criteria;
>>> poor reputation of the people making it - negative criteria. What
>>> positive criteria do you know about the Bigha that outweighs these
>>> negatives?
>>>
>>> Lorenzo L. Love
>>> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

>>
>>
>>
>> There are many criteria for bikes, and the weight given to each
>> varies depending on who is doing the judging. How did you pick your
>> bikes, for instance? Was it simply a matter of dividing the price in
>> dollars by the weight in pounds? Not that this is a bad way of looking
>> at things - you're entitled to make your decisions based on the
>> criteria that you consider important.
>> By the way, "very heavy" is not a critiera, but a judgement. So is
>> "very expensive". Weight and price are criteria, and apparently the
>> only ones in existence to some people. I have mentioned several others
>> numerous times over the past 20 or so posts. Did you miss them? Dolan
>> apparently has a problem reading what is written, words and statements
>> and all, and instead concentrates on what he infers are "intentions"
>> instead. Perhaps you and he share that problem.
>> Anyway - you seem fixated on this BiGHA bike, demanding that people
>> come up with reasons why they would or wouldn't buy one. Why is that?
>> I know of one other person who has taken on a vendetta against a
>> manufacturer, in this other case it was pedals, and it all came down
>> to his being miffed that he wasn't give a free set. So now he trashes
>> them constantly. And, of course, he has never used them.
>> Could this be the source of your problem with the BiGHA? Isn't it
>> enough just to point out all of the bad things you noticed when you
>> rode it? Why do you demand that others provide you with their
>> evaluations of the bike?

>
>
> You're up to around 26 posts adamantly defending this bike while
> pretending not to, but you can't say why anyone should buy one. There
> are several good reason not to, it costs twice as much or more then
> comparative bikes in it's class for one, but why should anyone buy it?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand
>


Good God, Love! How am I defending this bike? Have I said anything
good AT ALL about it? No! What I have said applies to ALL bikes, not
just this one!
Why should anyone buy it? Why do you care? GET A LIFE!

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the Bigha good
> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are about.


My opinion is that it may well be a good machine, but it is not the best
value for anybody's money.

Melinda, who would never pay $890,000 for a McLaren F1 and has the same
opinion of it as well.

--
Where no oxen are, the crib is clean,
But much benefit is derived from the labor of the ox.
 
Lorenzo L. Love wrote:

> If your primary criteria is losing weight, you should definitely buy a
> Bigha. Peddling a heavy bike like a Bigha burns a lot more calories then
> a light one like your Baron Optima. Put a few bricks in your $275 Bigha
> bags (you'll probably want to use gold plated ones) to make it an even
> better value.


My Rebike weighed the same, cost $550 new, and looks better (more like a
bicycle equivalent of a Harley Davidson).

--
Where no oxen are, the crib is clean,
But much benefit is derived from the labor of the ox.
 
Melinda Meahan - remove TRASH to reply wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the
>> Bigha good
>> value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are
>> about.

>
>
> My opinion is that it may well be a good machine, but it is not the best
> value for anybody's money.
>
> Melinda, who would never pay $890,000 for a McLaren F1 and has the same
> opinion of it as well.
>


I think it's always dangerous to start figuring that any individual
knows what is best for any other individual, what they should wear, what
they should eat, and what they should spend their money on.
You have judged this particular bike not to be worth the money (a
good value) - for you. But how can you be so sure that it's not a good
value for someone else? You know the criteria that you're using to
determine the "best value", but is it the same as someone else's?
I wonder about people who spend thousands of dollars for a watch,
when one that keeps very good time can be had for $25 or less. And
houses. Shouldn't there be a fixed number, based on square feet per
dollar, and that anything over that one number would be considered not a
good value, a sign that the buyer has more money than sense, and so on?
The thing is, we all have our own criteria, or, at least those that
we share, we view them differently.
I wonder about those who will pay $1000 more for a Gold Rush than a
regular Tour Easy, for instance. Is a Gold Rush not the best value for
anyone's money? I know of quite a few people who would disagree. Are
they all wrong, and I am right? Who gets to decide?

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:41:23 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You just can't answer a simple question, can you? Did you buy a Bigha?
>
>Lorenzo L. Love
>http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
>Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand


No. I'm not going to buy a Tour Easy or a RANS of any kind or a
Serotta. By your logic, if I said I liked any of them the comment
would be untrue because I choose not to buy one. (Whether or not I or
Larry Varney like the BigHa is NOT an issue - we are discussing your
comments suggesting that the reviewers are either liars or frauds).

You are have a problem - you are either very young and foolish, you
have a reading comprehension problem or you have a fixation on the
BigHa that this group obviously can't correct.

This hasn't been about the BigHa for some time - its been about your
inability to follow or demonstrate basic logic. Instead you parrot
your question over and over when it is irrelevant.

It can't even be relevant in your mobius strip world unless you are
saying that you have bought every bike that you felt was a good value
as a bike. Is that a fact? Have you purchased every bike you think is
a good value? Did you purchase the bike this year that you believe to
be the 'best value'? If not, you are a poseur on your own grounds.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>

> Melinda Meahan - remove TRASH to reply wrote:
> > My opinion is that it may well be a good machine, but it is not the best
> > value for anybody's money.
> >
> > Melinda, who would never pay $890,000 for a McLaren F1 and has the same
> > opinion of it as well.
> >

>
> I think it's always dangerous to start figuring that any individual
> knows what is best for any other individual, what they should wear, what
> they should eat, and what they should spend their money on.



Right Larry. Melinda's dangerous figuring should'nt be allowed around here.

skip
(Who is thinking about getting a McLaren to speed up his commute)
 
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Edward Dolan wrote:


> > I don't believe Mr. Varney and I will ever connect on any issue in this
> > lifetime. He is a literalist. I do not get hung up on any particular

words
> > or even particular statements. I go for the overall sense of what is

being
> > said and I infer intention. I can do this because I read like a general
> > reader and not like some kind of confounded specialist who looks at

every
> > word or statement separately. But Mr. Varney could be a more careful

writer.
> > He is always saying conflicting things and not making it clear exactly

where
> > he stands. Thus, the misunderstandings are all over the place. What he

needs
> > to do is focus sharper on exactly what he is saying and not ramble so

much.
> > He also needs to make it clear what his intentions are. Intentions are

at
> > the core of what most writing is about after all.
> >

>
> Nonsense. Do not blame the writer for the inabilities of the reader.
> You claim that you read for "intention", and yet you admit that you do
> not "look at every word or statement separately". How do you read,
> Dolan, without looking at each "word or statement separately"? And how
> do you find I am "always saying conflicting things", if you don't read
> the words or statements separately?


As stated above, I read for the overall sense of what is being said. You
should try it sometime yourself. As far as I am concerned, you leave way too
many statements just hanging unconnected to anything. So I have to make the
connections for you. And you never come to a conclusion about anything.
Consequently, many of your posts strike me as being pointless. But I am very
good at completing other's thoughts and coming to conclusions. It is what I
do best in life. If you do not want others doing it for you, then do it
yourself.

Is Bigha good value or isn't it? That is the question that Lorenzo and I
would like you to answer.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]
> > Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the Bigha

good
> > value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are

about.
> > Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why

don't
> > you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup to

lost
> > souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of

anything
> > either.
> >

>
> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are used
> to judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have pointed that
> out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
> yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
> again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds per
> dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the relative
> weights of those criteria, that will vary among the individuals. Racers
> will care more about the weight, for example, than the color. Components
> used is also another variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff,
> as they would just install some pedals and things they already have.
> Some people value the ready-to-ride aspects of a delivered product,
> rather than having to assemble it themselves.
> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a bike.
> This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I can
> cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in another post.


You are unable to calibrate which issues are important and which are
peripheral. Weight and price are central to the issue of value. Those other
issues you think are also important are not important. You are unable to
make relevant discriminations. Therefore, you should not be a bicycle
reviewer. You will lead lesser minds than mine astray with your analysis of
a bike's value because you are unable to advise a prospective purchaser of
what is important when it comes to getting a bike. Think weight and price
and you will never be too far from wrong. It is not JUST pounds per dollar,
but it is MOSTLY pounds per dollar. Thus spake Zarathustra!

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:

>
>
>>>I don't believe Mr. Varney and I will ever connect on any issue in this
>>>lifetime. He is a literalist. I do not get hung up on any particular

>
> words
>
>>>or even particular statements. I go for the overall sense of what is

>
> being
>
>>>said and I infer intention. I can do this because I read like a general
>>>reader and not like some kind of confounded specialist who looks at

>
> every
>
>>>word or statement separately. But Mr. Varney could be a more careful

>
> writer.
>
>>>He is always saying conflicting things and not making it clear exactly

>
> where
>
>>>he stands. Thus, the misunderstandings are all over the place. What he

>
> needs
>
>>>to do is focus sharper on exactly what he is saying and not ramble so

>
> much.
>
>>>He also needs to make it clear what his intentions are. Intentions are

>
> at
>
>>>the core of what most writing is about after all.
>>>

>>
>> Nonsense. Do not blame the writer for the inabilities of the reader.
>>You claim that you read for "intention", and yet you admit that you do
>>not "look at every word or statement separately". How do you read,
>>Dolan, without looking at each "word or statement separately"? And how
>>do you find I am "always saying conflicting things", if you don't read
>>the words or statements separately?

>
>
> As stated above, I read for the overall sense of what is being said. You
> should try it sometime yourself. As far as I am concerned, you leave way too
> many statements just hanging unconnected to anything. So I have to make the
> connections for you. And you never come to a conclusion about anything.
> Consequently, many of your posts strike me as being pointless. But I am very
> good at completing other's thoughts and coming to conclusions. It is what I
> do best in life. If you do not want others doing it for you, then do it
> yourself.
>
> Is Bigha good value or isn't it? That is the question that Lorenzo and I
> would like you to answer.
>


ROTFL! You may "read for the overall sense", and yet you come to
completely incorrect conclusions. You claim I am saying something that
is not to be found, not in the slightest, in anything I've written. You
connect what I have written with things that are only in your mind, and
then blame ME for the result. My points are always clear, and I state
them, over and over again, in the hopes that perhaps someday someone can
help you understand.
You do not need to complete my thoughts on this issue, Dolan, nor do
you need to come to any other conclusions than this: there are many
criteria involved in buying things, including bikes. Some criteria are
weighted more, some less, depending solely on the individual. Do you
understand, Dolan? Do I need to use different words? Perhaps put it all
in some sort of outline?
Maybe if you thought about what I've said, and tried to see if you
agreed with me or not, that might help. So let's hear it: do you agree,
or disagree, that there are many criteria involved in buying things, and
that different people weigh those criteria differently? Yes or no,
Dolan. Or do you need me to make it even simpler?
As for what you and Love want - which, apparently, is for me to
decide for you the value of the BiGHA bike - why ask me? Am I the sole
arbiter of worth? Do you trust, or need, me to decide whether or not a
particular bike is a good value? If I say yes, will you go out and buy
one? If I say no, will you not buy one?
You and Love should be able to figure it all by now, Dolan. It's not
a difficult conclusion to come to. But, just in case you really do need
for me to tell you what to think and what to conclude, here it is:
The value of anything, including the BiGHA, is determined by each
individual. Each individual should be able to come to a decision as to
whether or not it's worth the asking price. This goes for bikes, trikes,
horses, cars, hamburgers, you name it.
Now, if you truly do need me or anyone else to tell you which is a
good value in any or all of these items, then you really do have my pity.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> [...]
>
>>>Like Lorenzo, I too would like to know what you are doing? Is the Bigha

>
> good
>
>>>value or is it not? That is what all these posts on this thread are

>
> about.
>
>>>Try to cut to the quick of something for just once in your life why

>
> don't
>
>>>you? Either do that or confine your conversations on this newsgroup to

>
> lost
>
>>>souls like Jon Meinecke. He never likes to get to the substance of

>
> anything
>
>>>either.
>>>

>>
>> The issue is not the value of the BiGHA, but what criteria are used
>>to judge the value of any bike - or anything at all. I have pointed that
>>out, countless times. No, wait a minute, Lorenzo has counted them. And
>>yet, you can't seem to understand what I've written.
>> Would you really like to "know what [I'm] doing"? OK, here it is
>>again: I am pointing out that the value of a bike is not just pounds per
>>dollar - there are more criteria used than that. As to the relative
>>weights of those criteria, that will vary among the individuals. Racers
>>will care more about the weight, for example, than the color. Components
>>used is also another variable - some people would opt for cheaper stuff,
>>as they would just install some pedals and things they already have.
>>Some people value the ready-to-ride aspects of a delivered product,
>>rather than having to assemble it themselves.
>> These are all criteria that are used in judging the value of a bike.
>>This is what I have been saying. Do you understand it now? If not, I can
>>cut-and-paste the past few paragraphs and put them in another post.

>
>
> You are unable to calibrate which issues are important and which are
> peripheral. Weight and price are central to the issue of value. Those other
> issues you think are also important are not important. You are unable to
> make relevant discriminations. Therefore, you should not be a bicycle
> reviewer. You will lead lesser minds than mine astray with your analysis of
> a bike's value because you are unable to advise a prospective purchaser of
> what is important when it comes to getting a bike. Think weight and price
> and you will never be too far from wrong. It is not JUST pounds per dollar,
> but it is MOSTLY pounds per dollar. Thus spake Zarathustra!
>


Nonsense. Weight and price are important, certainly. But to say that
the other criteria are not important is, well, stupid and arrogant. Now,
if you were to say that they weren't important *to you*, that's fine.
But just to make that claim, for everyone, is stupid and arrogant. Who
the hell are *you* to decide for everyone that the other things that
lead them to choose between one item and another are not important?
I do not tell people what a bike's "value" is; I leave that to the
arrogant and stupid. I tell them what *I* think of a bike, I talk about
various aspects of it, how it rode, what sort of components it had, and
yes, how much it weighed and how much it cost. I decide *for myself* if
something is a good value. And, if I decide that it is, chances are good
that I'll buy it. If not, I don't. Simple enough for most to understand.
The value is up to the individual. Or do you disagree? That's a
simple question, Dolan. Do you agree that the value is up to the
individual or not?

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]
> > Mr. Sherman and I are both long time readers of RCN (I have every issue
> > going back to the beginning, except for the very first issue which I

somehow
> > seemed to have missed) and so are more knowledgeable than those who are

not
> > long time readers of RCN. The very best articles that the editor of that
> > publication (Bob Bryant) ever writes are those where he reviews on a

regular
> > basis basic aspects of the different kinds of recumbents. That kind of

information
> > is priceless and is easily worth the subscription price to RCN alone.
> >

>
> I've been reading RCN for years now, too, and I agree - lots of great
> information in that magazine. And, not to denigrate Bob Bryant's
> expertise and range of experiences, but you do have to be wary of one
> thing: sometimes what you might interpret as being an objective, factual
> analysis of "basic aspects of the different kinds of recumbents" might
> be tainted with some subjective, maybe even subconscious, bias. Some of
> us feel more comfortable on swb, some on lwb. Some prefer ASS, some
> prefer USS. So when you start talking about those "basic aspects", our
> own preferences will have a way of coloring the "facts".


Mr. Bryant always makes clear his biases. Most of his biases I agree with
and the few that I don't agree with are just fine with me because he has
told me where he stands. He is above all else fair. That is all I ever
require of a reviewer.

> It's always preferable, whenever possible - and it sometimes isn't -
> to check things out for yourself. I still remember (it was a long time
> ago) how it was common knowledge that swb bikes were twitchy and hard to
> handle, and that lwb was definitely the way to go. I accepted that fact
> for several years, riding my Infinity. And then I had a chance to take a
> brief ride on a Vision.
> It took all of about 15 minutes to realize that the "facts" were
> wrong, that swb were not "twitchy". At least, not this one. So, maybe
> others weren't either. Shortly after that ride, I bought an Haluzak
> Horizon, followed by a string of several other swb recumbents. And guess
> what? They weren't twitchy at all.


I have always found SWB to be twitchy. The first thing I did after I got my
Vision was to convert it to LWB. However, I do not have a problem with
others who disagree with me about the basics. It is important for the reader
to find a reviewer that he mostly agrees with so you aren't constantly at
loggerheads with him. If Bob Bryant preferred SWB to LWB he would not so
clearly be my kind of cyclist.

By the way, I still have my first recumbent which was an Infinity. I also
have one of the earliest Infinities which has the square tubing in the rear
triangle. I have always greatly liked the looks of the Infinity. Somehow, it
reminds me of the Avatar.

> Just a long-winded way of saying that generalizations can deliver a
> lot of valuable information, but they can also mask some misconceptions
> and biases as well. Read the reviews, listen to the "experts", but when
> at all possible, check it out for yourself.


Agreed! I greatly envy reviewers who can try out so many different
recumbents. I have always had to buy my recumbents before I can try them
out. Hence, the importance of good and fair reviews to me.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
>
> So you are quite happy to buy something at an inflated price from a
> group of people who have previously walked away from contracts,
> warranties and product support?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand


"A group of people who have previously walked away from contracts,
warranties and product support?"

Who is in this group of people, exactly? Can you name the specific
individuals who are not to be trusted? And what contracts did they
walk away from? What were the terms? Who signed said contracts? Were
they personally guaranteed? By who?

Had Bigha's founder been BikeE's founder, I could maybe see where you
were drawing this parallel. However, it is clear to me that Bigha is
being run by a wise business man who knows how to turn a profit.
Since businesses are designed to make a profit and profitless
businesses eventually shut down (like BikeE did), this would lead me
to conclude Bigha will be around for a while.