Thank You Nissan... NOT!

[Ride-A-Lot]

Slack wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:30:03 -0800, Ride-A-Lot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Slack wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:06:07 -0800, isthisane
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No one seemed to complain when Lance road through the mud in the Subaru
>>>> Outback Adds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's because he had cancer and only has one nut; He's exempt.
>>
>>
>> Ooh, not nice Slacker. Cancer is a very serious disease and
>> testicular cancer is one of the hardest to fight. He is a very lucky
>> man to be alive today. I suppose it is a combination of the targeted
>> chemotherapy he was given, his determination, diet, and exercise. I
>> am not a big Lance fan (I find him to be a pompous twit and I have
>> met him personally), but anyone who can beat an undeserved death
>> sentence gets my respect.
>>
>> And since you brought it up and live in SoCal, I hope to see you here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5nohm
>>
>> And anyone else in the SoCal region that is curious about the current
>> progress in fighting cancer. Please spread the word to those you know.
>>
>
>
> I certainly didn't mean to make light of the disease .My ex-roommate had
> a nasty case of Melanoma, another friend/business associate had breast
> cancer, and a friend a work recently had his wife pass away due to cancer.

1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
really scary way to look at it.

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

 

[Jimbo(san)]

Here's mine:

Dear Nissan,

You can make it up to us by giving us all free cars.

Thank you,

John Harlow

I like it!
Call the free car a ride responsible rebate ;-P


Jimbo... very responsible rider...(san)

 

[Corvus Corvax]

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>
> 1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person
on
> either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That
is a
> really scary way to look at it.

It's also a pointless and misleading way to look at it. For a
discussion of this phenomenon relative to the of-quoted "one in eight"
statistic for breast cancer, see:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/bcancer.html

Heart disease is still the number one killer in America, by quite a
margin.

With respect to the original topic: I finally saw the commercial in
question, and I can't imagine what the fuss is about. Some guy skids a
bike in a muddy parking lot. So?

CC

 

[JD]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> With respect to the original topic: I finally saw the commercial in
> question, and I can't imagine what the fuss is about. Some guy skids
a
> bike in a muddy parking lot. So?


To the trained eye like yours, it was just a parking lot. I know this
one doof who occasionally posts here that relishes in taking huge
parking lot skids and it's funny as hell. To joe blow average american
cluebie, that scumbag "mountain biker" in the commercial was skidding
his mt dew charged bike all over the trail, ruining the landscape.
Perception to those in the know as opposed to those with little to no
clue has a vast sea in-between, my physics-minded friend.

JD

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

JD wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>
>>With respect to the original topic: I finally saw the commercial in
>>question, and I can't imagine what the fuss is about. Some guy skids
>
> a
>
>>bike in a muddy parking lot. So?
>
>
>
> To the trained eye like yours, it was just a parking lot. I know this
> one doof who occasionally posts here that relishes in taking huge
> parking lot skids and it's funny as hell. To joe blow average american
> cluebie, that scumbag "mountain biker" in the commercial was skidding
> his mt dew charged bike all over the trail, ruining the landscape.
> Perception to those in the know as opposed to those with little to no
> clue has a vast sea in-between, my physics-minded friend.
>
> JD
>

Well said. Thank you.

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

 

[Corvus Corvax]

JD wrote:
> To joe blow average american cluebie, that scumbag "mountain biker"
in the
> commercial was skidding his mt dew charged bike all over the trail,
ruining
> the landscape.

I think you're really overestimating the intellectual capacity of the
joe blow average american cluebie. Just look at how many people buy
those cars.

CC

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> JD wrote:
>
>>To joe blow average american cluebie, that scumbag "mountain biker"
>
> in the
>
>>commercial was skidding his mt dew charged bike all over the trail,
>
> ruining
>
>>the landscape.
>
>
> I think you're really overestimating the intellectual capacity of the
> joe blow average american cluebie. Just look at how many people buy
> those cars.
>
> CC
>

Still doesn't make it right to not do your homework before making a
commercial.

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

 

[JD]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> JD wrote:
> > To joe blow average american cluebie, that scumbag "mountain biker"
> in the
> > commercial was skidding his mt dew charged bike all over the trail,
> ruining
> > the landscape.
>
> I think you're really overestimating the intellectual capacity of the
> joe blow average american cluebie. Just look at how many people buy
> those cars.
>
> CC


True, there are a lot of dummies out there and I should have clarified
a little more. The average american psuedointellectual wannabe
"enviro" that like to issue knee-jerk responses to the media's
portrayal are to whom I was really referring. The average bonehead tv
watching american cluebie would say something like, "Hey! That there
looks like fun. I'm gonna get me one a those." (meaning the bicycle
because they could never afford that nissan) This in turn explains why
we have skidiots all over the trails. As always, I'm totally against
any "mainstreaming" mountain biking, especially through irresponsible
advertising campaigns. Maybe IMBA should tell those companies a thing
or two and prove their worth.

JD

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

Slack wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:30:03 -0800, Ride-A-Lot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Slack wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:06:07 -0800, isthisane
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No one seemed to complain when Lance road through the mud in the Subaru
>>>> Outback Adds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's because he had cancer and only has one nut; He's exempt.
>>
>>
>> Ooh, not nice Slacker. Cancer is a very serious disease and
>> testicular cancer is one of the hardest to fight. He is a very lucky
>> man to be alive today. I suppose it is a combination of the targeted
>> chemotherapy he was given, his determination, diet, and exercise. I
>> am not a big Lance fan (I find him to be a pompous twit and I have
>> met him personally), but anyone who can beat an undeserved death
>> sentence gets my respect.
>>
>> And since you brought it up and live in SoCal, I hope to see you here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5nohm
>>
>> And anyone else in the SoCal region that is curious about the current
>> progress in fighting cancer. Please spread the word to those you know.
>>
>
>
> I certainly didn't mean to make light of the disease .My ex-roommate had
> a nasty case of Melanoma, another friend/business associate had breast
> cancer, and a friend a work recently had his wife pass away due to cancer.

1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
really scary way to look at it.

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

 

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On 17 Mar 2005 16:40:11 GMT, Ride-A-Lot <[email protected]>
wrote:

>1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
>either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
>really scary way to look at it.

This was idiotic the first time around, why would you want to repost
it and embarrass yourself further?

 

[S o r n i]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2005 16:40:11 GMT, Ride-A-Lot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person
>> on either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer.
>> That is a really scary way to look at it.
>
> This was idiotic the first time around, why would you want to repost
> it and embarrass yourself further?

There's been a spate of "REPOST"'s's-es in the three cycling newsgroups to
which I subscribe, so perhaps your scorn is misplaced in this case.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2005 16:40:11 GMT, Ride-A-Lot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
>>either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
>>really scary way to look at it.
>
>
> This was idiotic the first time around, why would you want to repost
> it and embarrass yourself further?
>

WTF are you talking about?

First, I did not repost anything. Second, stick to things you know
about, like cars. I work for the organization that invented the term
cancer in 1907. The final word in our name is RESEARCH. If you want it
from the horses mouth, come down to the Anaheim Convention Center for
the public forum on April 16 and you can talk to the person who did the
research.

See you there, Pete.

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

 

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:12:14 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
<[email protected]> wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2005 16:40:11 GMT, Ride-A-Lot <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
>>>either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
>>>really scary way to look at it.
>>
>>
>> This was idiotic the first time around, why would you want to repost
>> it and embarrass yourself further?
>>
>
>WTF are you talking about?
>
>First, I did not repost anything.

See Google and the same message from " Ride-A-Lot Mar 15, 3:39
am" and " Ride-A-Lot Mar 17, 8:40 am"

Given your goofy posting history and habits, I was not at all
surprised that you would repeat that hysteria.

> Second, stick to things you know
>about, like cars.

Why don't you eductae yourself instead?

Corvus already tried, perhaps you missed his eloquent, and gentle,
reply?

"It's also a pointless and misleading way to look at it. For a
discussion of this phenomenon relative to the of-quoted "one in eight"
statistic for breast cancer, see:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/bcancer.html

Heart disease is still the number one killer in America, by quite a
margin. "

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:12:14 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Mar 2005 16:40:11 GMT, Ride-A-Lot <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
>>>>either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
>>>>really scary way to look at it.
>>>
>>>
>>>This was idiotic the first time around, why would you want to repost
>>>it and embarrass yourself further?
>>>
>>
>>WTF are you talking about?
>>
>>First, I did not repost anything.
>
>
> See Google and the same message from " Ride-A-Lot Mar 15, 3:39
> am" and " Ride-A-Lot Mar 17, 8:40 am"
>
> Given your goofy posting history and habits, I was not at all
> surprised that you would repeat that hysteria.
>

Hmmm... Got a problem today, Pete? What part of "I did not repost
anything" did you not understand?

>
>>Second, stick to things you know
>>about, like cars.
>
>
> Why don't you eductae yourself instead?

I guess that means I will not see you at the public forum. I figured as
much. All talk and no action. I guess you know all there is to know
about cancer. Perhaps I can add you to the panel of experts who will be
speaking?

>
> Corvus already tried, perhaps you missed his eloquent, and gentle,
> reply?

Perhaps I thought it was pointless?



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

 

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:29:43 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
<[email protected]> wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

>>>First, I did not repost anything.
>>
>>
>> See Google and the same message from " Ride-A-Lot Mar 15, 3:39
>> am" and " Ride-A-Lot Mar 17, 8:40 am"
>>
>> Given your goofy posting history and habits, I was not at all
>> surprised that you would repeat that hysteria.
>>
>
>Hmmm... Got a problem today, Pete?

Nope, just laughing at your posts, which is typical.

What part of "I did not repost
>anything" did you not understand?

I understood it just fine.

Which part of my explanation are you struggling with?

There are two identical posts attributed to you on two different days.

Get it?

>>>Second, stick to things you know
>>>about, like cars.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you eductae yourself instead?
>
>I guess that means I will not see you at the public forum. I figured as
>much. All talk and no action. I guess you know all there is to know
>about cancer. Perhaps I can add you to the panel of experts who will be
>speaking?

Just because I'm unwilling to join you at "your" forum doesn't mean
that I don't understand the underlying statistics, or am unwilling to
discuss your hysterical claims.

Nice try though.

>> Corvus already tried, perhaps you missed his eloquent, and gentle,
>> reply?
>
>Perhaps I thought it was pointless?

That speaks volumes about your ignorance. Not that folks needed any
more confirmation though.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:29:43 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>First, I did not repost anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>See Google and the same message from " Ride-A-Lot Mar 15, 3:39
>>>am" and " Ride-A-Lot Mar 17, 8:40 am"
>>>
>>>Given your goofy posting history and habits, I was not at all
>>>surprised that you would repeat that hysteria.
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm... Got a problem today, Pete?
>
>
> Nope, just laughing at your posts, which is typical.
>
> What part of "I did not repost
>
>>anything" did you not understand?
>
>
> I understood it just fine.
>
> Which part of my explanation are you struggling with?
>
> There are two identical posts attributed to you on two different days.
>
> Get it?
>
>
>>>>Second, stick to things you know
>>>>about, like cars.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you eductae yourself instead?
>>
>>I guess that means I will not see you at the public forum. I figured as
>>much. All talk and no action. I guess you know all there is to know
>>about cancer. Perhaps I can add you to the panel of experts who will be
>>speaking?
>
>
> Just because I'm unwilling to join you at "your" forum doesn't mean
> that I don't understand the underlying statistics, or am unwilling to
> discuss your hysterical claims.
>
> Nice try though.
>
>
>>>Corvus already tried, perhaps you missed his eloquent, and gentle,
>>>reply?
>>
>>Perhaps I thought it was pointless?
>
>
> That speaks volumes about your ignorance. Not that folks needed any
> more confirmation though.
>

Too obvious. At least your consistent.

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

 

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:10:01 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Too obvious. At least your(sic) consistent.

So the self-professed "expert" about cancer statistics thinks that an
explanation of the silliness of his "3 in 1" or "2 in 1" claim is
pointless?

That's understandable, given your lack of knowledge.

 

[Ride-A-Lot]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:10:01 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Too obvious. At least your(sic) consistent.
>
>
> So the self-professed "expert" about cancer statistics thinks that an
> explanation of the silliness of his "3 in 1" or "2 in 1" claim is
> pointless?
>

Expert no (and I never said I was). Work with and ask more experts in
one square yard of my office than you will ever know in a lifetime (god
willing you don't get cancer), yes. It was 1 in 3, not 3 in 1 and it
was pointless to argue with someone who obviously doesn't want to
understand the research.

> That's understandable, given your lack of knowledge.
>

I believe the lack of knowledge is on your part. Your willingness to
avoid a "public" forum (not mine) on the issue is proof. Well, you can
always watch the Webcast if you cared.

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

 

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:49:24 -0500, Ride-A-Lot
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe the lack of knowledge is on your part. Your willingness to
>avoid a "public" forum (not mine) on the issue is proof.

That's almost as retarded as your 1 in 3 claim. Almost.

Avoid? Please. This is a usenet discussion and you are unable to
understand a simple link that describes the silliness of your claims.

The fact that someone doesn't show up at "your" forum has no bearing
on the fact that you're confused. Apparently it does make you feel
better since you apparently consider that kind of "trump card" to be
useful.

p.s. If you wanted to show your understanding you woould attend "my"
forum in LA Paz in two weeks. See how silly you are?

p.p.s. perhaps it's time for you to ask one of the experts that
allegedly surround you about the true meaning of say...the 1 in 8
likelyhood of a woman getting breast cancer and how that does not
equal a 12 % chance...

 

[GeeDubb]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> p.p.s. perhaps it's time for you to ask one of the experts that
> allegedly surround you about the true meaning of say...the 1 in 8
> likelyhood of a woman getting breast cancer and how that does not
> equal a 12 % chance...

Mitch didn't claim a 1 in 3 chance of getting breast cancer. He claimed a 1
in 3 to get any kind of cancer (see the quote below) so I'm not sure why
you're on the attack. Where are you getting your information to counter
his?

"1 in 3 and actually moving towards 1 in 2, my friend. Put a person on
either side of you and one of you will definitely get cancer. That is a
really scary way to look at it."

Now off for an afternoon ride.

Gary