Roger Zoul wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > :::::::: ... > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > :::::::: > :::::: > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > :::::: conventional? > ::::: > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > ::: > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > ::: serve my needs. > :: > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > :: purpose. > :: > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > :: > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > :: purpose. > :: > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > division.
The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> The only reason I posted > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > be a troll playhouse.
Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> This is very disappointing.
Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
[1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what consists of a bicycle.
Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your intention. If you do not want to be treated like a loser, then stop acting like one.
Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
You yourself said you do not react well to being bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
In article <[email hidden]> , "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote: > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > ::: [email hidden] wrote: > > ::::: ... > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike. > > ::::: > > ::: > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional? > > :: > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides > > :: an upright bicycle. > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why > > either of them can't serve my needs. > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > purpose. > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on > > the road as opposed to another car!... > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > purpose. > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
How about you address directly any slights to the slighting party? Or go back to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are never on topic.
Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote: > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > > :::::::: ... > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > > :::::::: > > :::::: > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > > :::::: conventional? > > ::::: > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > > ::: > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > > ::: serve my needs. > > :: > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > :: purpose. > > :: > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > > :: > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > :: purpose. > > :: > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > > division. > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently. > > > The only reason I posted > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > > be a troll playhouse. > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums. > > > This is very disappointing. > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur. > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what > consists of a bicycle.
Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your intention. If you do not want to be treated like a loser, then stop acting like one.
Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
You yourself said you do not react well to being bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
Do not address me as `Dude'.
Mr. Press,
A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet newsgroup.
Michael Press wrote: > In article > <[email hidden]> > , > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > ::::: ... > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike. > > > ::::: > > > ::: > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional? > > > :: > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides > > > :: an upright bicycle. > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why > > > either of them can't serve my needs. > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > purpose. > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on > > > the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > purpose. > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > How about you address directly any slights to the > slighting party? Or go back to > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are never on topic.
Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack of history. The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
Michael Press wrote: > In article > <[email hidden]>, > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > :::::::: ... > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > > > :::::::: > > > :::::: > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > > > :::::: conventional? > > > ::::: > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > > > ::: > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > > > ::: serve my needs. > > > :: > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > :: purpose. > > > :: > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > > > :: > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > :: purpose. > > > :: > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > > > division. > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently. > > > > > The only reason I posted > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > > > be a troll playhouse. > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums. > > > > > This is very disappointing. > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur. > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what > > consists of a bicycle. > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a > loser, then stop acting like one.
Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
You yourself said you do not react well to being bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
Do not address me as `Dude'.
Mr. Press,
A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
No, you have to spell it out.
Quoted message said:
If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet newsgroup.
False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <[email hidden]>, > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > :::::::: ... > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > :::::::: > > > > :::::: > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > > > > :::::: conventional? > > > > ::::: > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > > > > ::: > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > > > > ::: serve my needs. > > > > :: > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > :: purpose. > > > > :: > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > :: > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > :: purpose. > > > > :: > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > > > > division. > > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently. > > > > > > > The only reason I posted > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > > > > be a troll playhouse. > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums. > > > > > > > This is very disappointing. > > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur. > > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what > > > consists of a bicycle. > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a > > loser, then stop acting like one. > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
You yourself said you do not react well to being bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
Do not address me as `Dude'.
Mr. Press,
A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
No, you have to spell it out.
Quoted message said:
If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet newsgroup.
False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
In article <[email hidden]> , "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <[email hidden]> > > , > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > ::::: ... > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > ::::: > > > > ::: > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional? > > > > :: > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides > > > > :: an upright bicycle. > > > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why > > > > either of them can't serve my needs. > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > purpose. > > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on > > > > the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > purpose. > > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the > > slighting party? Or go back to > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs. > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are never on topic.
Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack of history...
I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
Quoted message said:
The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
Quoted message said:
Michael Press said:
In article <[email hidden]> ,
Johnny Sunset said:
Michael Press wrote: > In article > <[email hidden]> > , > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Michael Press wrote: > > > In article > > > <[email hidden]> > > > , > > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > > ::::: ... > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > > ::::: > > > > > ::: > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional? > > > > > :: > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides > > > > > :: an upright bicycle. > > > > > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs. > > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the > > > slighting party? Or go back to > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs. > > > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES? > > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are > never on topic.
Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack of history...
I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
Generalized complaints about how you are mistreated here is not productive. Address directly those silly upright riders.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
Quoted message said:
Michael Press said:
In article <[email hidden]> ,
Johnny Sunset said:
Michael Press wrote: > In article > <[email hidden]>, > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Michael Press wrote: > > > In article > > > <[email hidden]>, > > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > > :::::::: ... > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > > :::::::: > > > > > :::::: > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > > > > > :::::: conventional? > > > > > ::::: > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > > > > > ::: > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > > > > > ::: serve my needs. > > > > > :: > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > :: purpose. > > > > > :: > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > > :: > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > :: purpose. > > > > > :: > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently. > > > > > > > > > The only reason I posted > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > > > > > be a troll playhouse. > > > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums. > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing. > > > > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur. > > > > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what > > > > consists of a bicycle. > > > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a > > > loser, then stop acting like one. > > > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh! > > You yourself said you do not react well to being > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone. > > Do not address me as `Dude'.
Mr. Press,
A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
No, you have to spell it out.
Quoted message said:
If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet newsgroup.
False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]
You cannot cite any place that I expressed the sentiment you ascribe to me. Hence, you predicate that injunction upon a false premise.
As a spokesman for recumbent riders, you may wish to reexamine your approach. Yawning in someone's face and using a demeaning form of address is counter-productive.
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
Quoted message said:
Michael Press said:
In article <[email hidden]> , "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <[email hidden]> > > , > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Michael Press wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <[email hidden]> > > > > , > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > > > ::::: ... > > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and > > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at > > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be > > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > > > ::::: > > > > > > ::: > > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional? > > > > > > :: > > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides > > > > > > :: an upright bicycle. > > > > > > > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike > > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I > > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why > > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs. > > > > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to > > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on > > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the > > > > slighting party? Or go back to > > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs. > > > > > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY > > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES? > > > > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it > > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are > > never on topic. > > Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech > CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back > to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack of history...
I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
Generalized complaints about how you are mistreated here is not productive. Address directly those silly upright riders.
Once again, since Michael Press does not appear to understand (willfully?), I am not complaining about my treatment, I am pointing out how silly it is for upright riders (e.g. Jobst Brandt [1]) to complain about a few "recumbent evangelists" when vocal upright riding detractors (not to mention Usenet posters) of recumbents are more common.
Is this that hard to understand?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?
Take it as you will, the style has no place here.
When people willfully refuse to comprehend, on must write "LOUDER".
In article <[email hidden]>, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
Quoted message said:
Michael Press said:
In article <[email hidden]> , "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <[email hidden]>, > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Michael Press wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <[email hidden]>, > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: > > > > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote: > > > > > > :::::::: ... > > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for > > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, > > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them > > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always > > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike. > > > > > > :::::::: > > > > > > :::::: > > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a > > > > > > :::::: conventional? > > > > > > ::::: > > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a > > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who > > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle. > > > > > > ::: > > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I > > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person > > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding > > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't > > > > > > ::: serve my needs. > > > > > > :: > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > > :: purpose. > > > > > > :: > > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw > > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who > > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of > > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!... > > > > > > :: > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY > > > > > > :: purpose. > > > > > > :: > > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a > > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who > > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe > > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the > > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for > > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not > > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of > > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason I posted > > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to > > > > > > be a troll playhouse. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak > > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums. > > > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for > > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if > > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there > > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur. > > > > > > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what > > > > > consists of a bicycle. > > > > > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your > > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a > > > > loser, then stop acting like one. > > > > > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh! > > > > You yourself said you do not react well to being > > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical > > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is > > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles. > > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone. > > > > Do not address me as `Dude'. > > Mr. Press, > > A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for > discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed > to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe > you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
No, you have to spell it out.
> If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter > changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet > newsgroup.
False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]
You cannot cite any place that I expressed the sentiment you ascribe to me. Hence, you predicate that injunction upon a false premise.
Michael Press is misinterpreting the purposes to my posts - we indeed have a failure to communicate here.
Quoted message said:
As a spokesman for recumbent riders, you may wish to reexamine your approach. Yawning in someone's face and using a demeaning form of address is counter-productive.
Contrary to popular belief, I not recommending anyone ride a recumbent bicycle unless they are interested in trying something different, or have tried all the normal remedies for upright discomfort (professional fitting, saddles with different effective widths, anti-chafing lotions, etc.) WITHOUT success.
