Re: This group is full of morons



>From: [email protected] (Michael Press)
>In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>Paul G. says;
>All that is common sense, which evidently isn't all that
>common these days. There's no need to "normalize data blah
>blah blah". -Paul
>  ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience
of
>normal man...
>    How many here believe Paul G. has the common sense
>to stop trying to support his childish rant?
>That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are
>not seemly, nor in good taste.
>--
>Michael Press

Michael,

If you're trying to paint me as some kind of anti-free speech nut it
won't stick.
The over- use of the phrase "common sense" is just one of my _very_
few pet peeves. Whenever the opportunity presents itself I enjoy
asking the user of the forementioned phrase "What _is_ common sense?"
Quite often, as defined, the "common sense" phrase user has no idea
as to "what is" common sense.
But to prove that I _do_ have "common sense", I've now learned to
never ask anyone, ever again, to define the phrase "common sense".
So I'll get out of your way now so that you may enjoy the expert
opinions of
Mr. Paul G. and continue your role as playground teacher.

just regards - Mike Baldwin
 
On Mar 9, 4:06 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:03 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > Paul G. says;
>
> > >All that is common sense, which evidently isn't all that
> > >common these days. There's no need to "normalize data blah
> > >blah blah". -Paul
>
> > ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience of
> > normal man...
>
> > How many here believe Paul G. has the common sense to stop trying to
> > support his childish rant?
>
> > Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>
> Using his logic cyclists are pussies and not athletes either compared
> to Ironman tri types, and they suck next to decathletes. He could just
> check the archives since we killed this a long time ago too.
> Bill C

That's not using my logic, nor would I say that or anything remotely
like that. If you want to make up ********, be my guest, but leave me
out of it.
-Paul
 
On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> Paul G. says;
>
> >All that is common sense, which evidently isn't all that
> >common these days. There's no need to "normalize data blah
> >blah blah". -Paul
>
> ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience of
> normal man...
>
> How many here believe Paul G. has the common sense to stop trying to
> support his childish rant?


Nice try. I'm kicking your ass here, and besides, that's not the
definition of "common sense". Look it up, don't make it up.
-Paul
 
On Mar 9, 6:16 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> The over- use of the phrase "common sense" is just one of my _very_
> few pet peeves. Whenever the opportunity presents itself I enjoy
> asking the user of the forementioned phrase "What _is_ common sense?"
> Quite often, as defined, the "common sense" phrase user has no idea
> as to "what is" common sense.

That's an amazing statement, since you don't seem to know the
definition of common sense yourself! This is ********:
> ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience of normal man...

> But to prove that I _do_ have "common sense", I've now learned to
> never ask anyone, ever again, to define the phrase "common sense".
> So I'll get out of your way now so that you may enjoy the expert
> opinions of
> Mr. Paul G. and continue your role as playground teacher.
>
> just regards - Mike Baldwin

Gee, you're so... sensitive. He makes one mildly sarcastic comment and
you go ballistic. Damn, Mr. Press, what's your secret? I'm envious.
-Paul
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> >From: [email protected] (Michael Press)
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Paul G. says;
> >All that is common sense, which evidently isn't all that
> >common these days. There's no need to "normalize data blah
> >blah blah". -Paul
> >  ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience
> of
> >normal man...
> >    How many here believe Paul G. has the common sense
> >to stop trying to support his childish rant?
> >That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are
> >not seemly, nor in good taste.
>
> If you're trying to paint me as some kind of anti-free speech nut it
> won't stick.
> The over- use of the phrase "common sense" is just one of my _very_
> few pet peeves. Whenever the opportunity presents itself I enjoy
> asking the user of the forementioned phrase "What _is_ common sense?"
> Quite often, as defined, the "common sense" phrase user has no idea
> as to "what is" common sense.
> But to prove that I _do_ have "common sense", I've now learned to
> never ask anyone, ever again, to define the phrase "common sense".
> So I'll get out of your way now so that you may enjoy the expert
> opinions of
> Mr. Paul G. and continue your role as playground teacher.

First of all get your quotation levels accurate.
Then we can talk about your misbehavior on the playground.

Can you find a better gate way to usenet than webtv?
Perhaps a real news server and news client?
Webtv is an abomination. It does not preserve the contents
of the References: header line.

What were we talking about?

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<9a29e5b5-6be4-437f-8edc-ec7647237e58@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 6:16 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > The over- use of the phrase "common sense" is just one of my _very_
> > few pet peeves. Whenever the opportunity presents itself I enjoy
> > asking the user of the forementioned phrase "What _is_ common sense?"
> > Quite often, as defined, the "common sense" phrase user has no idea
> > as to "what is" common sense.
>
> That's an amazing statement, since you don't seem to know the
> definition of common sense yourself! This is ********:
> > ...common sense has been defined as the unquantified experience of normal man...
>
> > But to prove that I _do_ have "common sense", I've now learned to
> > never ask anyone, ever again, to define the phrase "common sense".
> > So I'll get out of your way now so that you may enjoy the expert
> > opinions of
> > Mr. Paul G. and continue your role as playground teacher.
>
> Gee, you're so... sensitive. He makes one mildly sarcastic comment and
> you go ballistic.

Drat! I was going for irony.

> Damn, Mr. Press, what's your secret? I'm envious.

Stating the blindingly obvious, thinly veiled.

My dear Mother taught me how to put in the needle.
No substitute for that.

--
Michael Press
 
On Mar 9, 8:05 pm, Fabrizio Mazzoleni <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:46 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
>
>
> > PS - you wanna "kick ass" take your ******** ideas over to the nascar
> > boards
>
> Don't even think of going over there before doing your homework:
>
> http://i2.cdn.turner.com/nascar/.element/pdf/2.0/sect/kyn/fan_guide.pdf

Don't worry, I'm never "going over there". Why would I? Here's what a
reporter had to say on meeting the heroic Tony Stewart:

"I didn't even recognize Stewart when he shuffled into the locker room
15 minutes late, clutching a cup of coffee and sporting at least one
day's stubble. I was expecting someone bigger, more athletic, better
looking.

Instead, his hair was slicked back into a borderline mullet, like he
was living up to some sort of bad NASCAR stereotype. He has a small
pot belly and a double chin."

Sounds like he's not in the same league with Levi Leipheimer. Like I
said: "NASCAR drivers are wusses compared to bike racers." That's my
opinion, and I think I've provided plenty of justification for it.
-Paul
 
On Mar 9, 9:40 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
..
>
> Anyone with COMMON SENSE might understand that raod rash isn't the only kind of
> injury that a person can sustain in a crash. Since you don't unerstand that, you
> might not persist in such moronic blither about it.

Now that's amazing- you wrote that just below the part where I wrote
about my friend dying from a head injury suffered in a bike crash at
less than 30 mph.
Yes, I do indeed know that road rash isn't the only injury a person
can sustain in a crash. It took the ambulance a long time to get out
there, so I had plenty of time to reflect on that...

I've said all I have to say to you, and yeah, I think I'm the epitome
of brilliance... compared with you.
-Paul
 
In article <d0f09897-07c2-4f94-887c-483bce9e0171@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 8, 9:18 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You don't understand - I mean you've never been in a hard crash in a car.
> > Otherwise you wouldn't be sneering at the reponse to being in one that someone
> > else has. Do us a favor - go drive a car into a wall at 55 mph and tell us how
> > it felt. Then think about how much more unpleasant and painful it is at two, three
> > or more times that fast. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not (I actually
> > think you're simply unaware of this), drivers sometimes die in crashes at those
> > speeds, roll cage or not.
>
> That has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

I guess you think your posts are the epitome of brilliance, then? I'll put it this
way: in one of your posts, you sneeringly said of Tony Stewart, "Rumor has it when he
radioed for help he actually said "Mama! Mama!"" So you mock someone who has been in
a crash at speeds you won't go, which pretty well defines you as a ****.


> Maybe you have an excuse- are you brain damaged from all those crashes you've
> stupidly gotten yourself into? I'm never going to crash at NASCAR
> speeds (and hopefully not at 55 mph either) but Stewart has, and I
> posted his comments about it. He bruised his foot. BFD!

I'd say that the bruising he got was probably a lot different than when you bumped
the dining table with your foot going for seconds of ice cream.

> Cyclists get hurt far worse at far lower speeds- case in point, my friend who died
> from a head injury incurred at less than 30 mph. This is common sense-
> cyclists have very little protection due to the need for cooling, low
> drag, and low weight. People in cars, and particularly in NASCAR cars,
> have WAY more protection in a crash. There's also WAY more to it than
> how fast you are going. It's a tribute to your dumbness that I even
> have to waste time typing that as ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE KNOWS THAT.

Anyone with COMMON SENSE might understand that raod rash isn't the only kind of
injury that a person can sustain in a crash. Since you don't unerstand that, you
might not persist in such moronic blither about it. You mention in another post that
"Those guys routinely come out of a crash without a scratch." And you know this how?
From the same sources that told you that the cars have wipers?

> > That you keep nattering on about this **** when you obviously know next to
> > nothing about it and the fact that you are doing it to get a reaction out of
> > people (like an eight year old might) is a good indication that you're a very
> > silly person.
>
> As I just pointed out, you lack common sense.

Uh huh. That's rich.

> This is why I disparage NASCAR- it's a low-brow "sport" for neanderthals with no
> class. Cycling, on the other hand, is an elegant sport that requires everything
> motor sports do PLUS physical ability and the mental toughness to push yourself to
> the limit. Compare the skill and effort it takes to floor the accelerator on a car
> with the skill and effort it takes a cyclist to sprint. There's no comparison!

You sound like one of those stick and ball jocks who doesn't know squat about
racing of any sort who thinks that bicycle racing is for wusses, just like
motorsports. You obviously think racing a car is so simple that anyone can do it
successfully. What a pinhead.

> And that's my point. NASCAR drivers are wusses compared to bike
> racers. That's common sense. If that gets a reaction out of you, it
> simply proves that you lack common sense.

No, your point is that you don't like NASCAR (or, it seems, any motorsports).
That's fine, I really don't care. Everyone has likes and dislikes. But all of your
posts have been about knocking NASCAR. We get it - you don't like NASCAR. BFD. You
don't understand the most obvious thing about being in a high speed crash in a car
and want to compare it to crashing a bike, yet you say I lack COMMON SENSE? What a
dork.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 9:40 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> .
> >
> > Anyone with COMMON SENSE might understand that raod rash isn't the only
> > kind of injury that a person can sustain in a crash. Since you don't understand
> > that, you might not persist in such moronic blither about it.
>
> Now that's amazing- you wrote that just below the part where I wrote
> about my friend dying from a head injury suffered in a bike crash at
> less than 30 mph.
> Yes, I do indeed know that road rash isn't the only injury a person
> can sustain in a crash. It took the ambulance a long time to get out
> there, so I had plenty of time to reflect on that...
>
> I've said all I have to say to you, and yeah, I think I'm the epitome
> of brilliance... compared with you.

Snicker... What a dork. By the way, I should add to what I said about stick and
ball jocks and their opinions on motorsports and bicycle racing. They think
motorsports types are wusses but bike racers are far more lame - after all, they ride
around in their underwear. You have the same ill-informed opinions about motorsports.
I appreciate that you like bike racing - it is a great sport. But your constant,
repititious babbling about something you know nothing about is pretty pathetic.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Michael Press wrote:
> That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are not seemly, nor in good
> taste.

Good taste is andouillette in condensed milk.
 
Michael Press wrote:
>
> Can you find a better gate way to usenet than webtv?
> Perhaps a real news server and news client?
> Webtv is an abomination. It does not preserve the contents
> of the References: header line.
>
> What were we talking about?
>
We were talking about how Paul G. was "winning" a Usenet argument.
 
On Mar 10, 1:35 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've said all I have to say to you, and yeah, I think I'm the epitome
> of brilliance... compared with you.
> -Paul

We've got a choice here between you, your idiocy and conceit, and
Howard who has been involved with significant amounts of bicycle,
motorcycle, and auto racing, and who's got a long established
credibility here, and your insupportable argument. A more extreme
example of the fitness and skills a Nascar driver needs are fighter
pilots. They both have to be able to understand, and react, to
stimulus, under massive pressure, and G forces, in a split second,
with precise, controlled physical movements, and then do it, over and
over for hours at a time. Requires stamina, especially in a 140 degree
car for 4 hours, vision, strength, and incredible coordination.
Different training and skills, but still impressive. I'd be really
happy to take almost any elite/pro bicycle racer into the gym to do
some deadlifts, or better yet "clean and jerk" reps. I know the
result, even with my injuries.
Are they pussies? That was my point about triathletes, and
decathletes. They do things bicycle racers can't without changing
their type of fitness and skill set.
Bill C
 
On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> But to prove that I _do_ have "common sense", I've now learned to
> never ask anyone, ever again, to define the phrase "common sense".

On the usenet, I have a wide list of things to never ask.
 
On Mar 10, 3:36 am, "TM" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Sounds like he's not in the same league with Levi Leipheimer.
>
> These Leipheimer fans are an odd lot.

He's a local boy, so I get to see him around town. Besides being a
superb athlete, he's a very impressive guy. But yeah, I feel like a
fish out of water, being a cycling fan in this den of NASCAR
buffs. ;-))
-Paul
 
On Mar 10, 4:16 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> A more extreme
> example of the fitness and skills a Nascar driver needs are fighter
> pilots. They both have to be able to understand, and react, to
> stimulus, under massive pressure, and G forces, in a split second,
> with precise, controlled physical movements, and then do it, over and
> over for hours at a time.

Now that's a hoot! I'm a USAF vet. I'll point out that fighter pilots
don't cancel their flights because of a little rain. And no, they
don't have windshield wipers either. Comparing them with pudgy NASCAR
bozos who only know how to turn left is an insult to our troops. Why
are you mixing in fighter pilots, motorcycle racers, triathletes, and
decathletes? I haven't said anything against any of those groups; in
fact I've got two motorcycles. I said "NASCAR drivers are wusses
compared to bike racers." and I gave lots of reasons why I hold that
opinion. (now some of that was tongue -in-cheek, but apparently some
of you are humor impaired.)

I didn't say it doesn't take any skill to be a NASCAR driver, or that
there are no risks, so don't bore me with that ****. I said "NASCAR
drivers are wusses compared to bike racers." I could add that they are
wusses compared with fighter pilots and superbike racers too. Um...
lessee. In general, I don't care much for popular culture. Shopping
malls, Britney Spears, rap music, crass materialism etc. I await
your wails for dissing Britney ...;-))
-Paul

p.s.- Did I mention that "NASCAR drivers are wusses compared to bike
racers" ?

[Disclaimer- some of the above is intended to be humorous. Please
don't burn a cross in my front yard.]
 
Paul G. wrote:

> I'm detecting a note of desperation in your post.

But he's not desperate enough to claim victory yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Re: This group is full of morons
Replies
0
Views
272
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
M
Re: This group is full of morons
Replies
2
Views
267
Road Cycling
Michael Baldwin
M
F
Re: This group is full of morons
Replies
0
Views
302
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F
D
Re: This group is full of morons
Replies
2
Views
255
Road Cycling
datakoll
D
P
Re: This group is full of morons
Replies
0
Views
280
Road Cycling
Paul G.
P
Top Bottom Back