Uphill speed.

[[email protected]]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

 

[mike vore]

[email protected] wrote:
> I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?
>

Probably for equal payloads. The I gather that most DFs are 20# or under
while 'bents are closer to 40#. But looking at the gross weight there is only
20# difference - or roughly 10%. But then most DF riders seem to be younger
and lighter so the gross weight may differ by lots more.

I commuted 9mi each way for a while. I started riding this route when I had a
Bike-E, and had an elapsed time of 40 minutes (one way). One day I needed to
ride my DF (I had not ridden it in about a year so my wedgie muscles were not
is shape). The elapsed time for the trip, though it felt faster was 45
minutes, 5 minutes longer (about 10% longer). Even though it was not on Flat
earth, there were no 'uphills' worthy of calling hills.

I know I'm slower uphill than kids half (or younger) my age and probably 2/3
my weight, and training for a Triathlon. But when it comes to the flat after a
nice downhill I pass some of them.

--
Mike Vore
http://www.OhMyWoodness.com
http://mike.vorefamily.net/twr

 

[Jon Meinecke]

<[email protected]> wrote
>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

It has been discussed.

Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
transmission).

Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
the power input.

Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
may not be large or sustainable.

I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
*long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
of some recumbents.

As someone said, though, "It's not about the bike."

Jon Meinecke

 

[Brian]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?
>

I remember reading one of those large tomes that held forth on all things
cycling...

It pointed out that 'bent riders are unable to do a standup sprint and so it
was necessary to "spin" your way uphill. In other words: stay in the saddle
and pedal like mad in a lower gear.

And I thought...man, that's what I'm doing NOW...

B.

 

[Hull 697]

<[email protected]> wrote
>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

"Those things can't climb."

I LOVE to hear that at the beginning of a group ride. It's nearly always from someone who has been riding less than a year, because there is someone around here - I have not met him - who is rumored to be an absolute monster of a hill climber on his bent.

This I hear from some roadies I only speak with at the beginnings of rides - they sustain 22+ mph which is way beyond me. Therefore, I weigh in on the side of "it's not the bike, it's the engine." That's certainly true for me.

OTOH, I go uphill faster than many of the weekend warriors around here.

Someone else says, "Don't Upgrade, Go Up Grades."

 

[Steve knight]

part of the problem is most people see slow geeky people on bents and
they are slow all the time. only lately are faster bents getting out
there and faster riders.
plus some bents climb better then others. the ones that climb well
are usually over 2k and usually way over.
a couple of expensive examples are the carbent and the stiletto. both
are great on hills but are about 5k.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jon Meinecke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
>> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
>> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?
>
> It has been discussed.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

> Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
> the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
> height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
> transmission).

Only Mr. Sherman, the civil engineer, will appreciate these lessons in
physics! The rest of us don't give a hoot about any of it. Hey, why not give
us a mathematical formula with letters and numbers so we can be completely
dumfounded? Or better yet, why don't you go over to that technical newsgroup
where they like to pretend they are scientific.

> Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
> to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
> Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
> losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
> differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
> the power input.

Yes, but everything else being equal, uprights climb hills much better than
recumbents. This is something you will never hear Jon Meinecke admit because
he has spent thousands of dollars on his recumbents and by God they had
better be faster or else!

> Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
> on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
> ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
> or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
> now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
> mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
> may not be large or sustainable.

Does anyone think you are as fast sitting down on a bike as you are standing
up out of the saddle? Especially going uphill?

> I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
> than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
> in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
> many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
> mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
> advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
> *long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
> of some recumbents.

Do you believe him when he says he is faster on his recumbent than he was on
his upright - going uphill? What was he riding, a Schwinn Varsity?

Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do with
going fast uphill?

> As someone said, though, "It's not about the bike."

You can depend on Jon Meinecke to examine all sides of an issue and never
come to any conclusions about anything - except to remind us how fair-minded
he is of course!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

> part of the problem is most people see slow geeky people on bents and
> they are slow all the time. only lately are faster bents getting out
> there and faster riders.
> plus some bents climb better then others. the ones that climb well
> are usually over 2k and usually way over.
> a couple of expensive examples are the carbent and the stiletto. both
> are great on hills but are about 5k.

The real problem here is that Steve Knight does not know the first thing
about how to write a message to a newsgroup. He apparently never heard of
capital letters and how they should be used. Christ, he does not even
capitalize his own last name 'knight' although I do note that 'Steve' is
capitalized.

Is the above all one paragraph or several? That is another deep mystery for
him that should have been solved in grade school. But at least he does put
periods at the end of his sentences, so that is something I guess.

What good does it do to have some good thinking if you can't put it in good
prose. The two go together if you want to communicate anything to anybody.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[duh]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Jon Meinecke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>><[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
>>>appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
>>>uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?
>>
>>It has been discussed.
>
>
> Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
>
>
>>Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
>>the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
>>height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
>>transmission).
>
>
> Only Mr. Sherman, the civil engineer, will appreciate these lessons in
> physics! The rest of us don't give a hoot about any of it. Hey, why not give
> us a mathematical formula with letters and numbers so we can be completely
> dumfounded? Or better yet, why don't you go over to that technical newsgroup
> where they like to pretend they are scientific.
>
>
>>Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
>>to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
>>Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
>>losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
>>differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
>>the power input.
>
>
> Yes, but everything else being equal, uprights climb hills much better than
> recumbents. This is something you will never hear Jon Meinecke admit because
> he has spent thousands of dollars on his recumbents and by God they had
> better be faster or else!
>
>
>>Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
>>on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
>>ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
>>or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
>>now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
>>mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
>>may not be large or sustainable.
>
>
> Does anyone think you are as fast sitting down on a bike as you are standing
> up out of the saddle? Especially going uphill?
>
>
>>I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
>>than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
>>in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
>>many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
>>mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
>>advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
>>*long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
>>of some recumbents.
>
>
> Do you believe him when he says he is faster on his recumbent than he was on
> his upright - going uphill? What was he riding, a Schwinn Varsity?
>
> Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do with
> going fast uphill?
>
>
>>As someone said, though, "It's not about the bike."
>
>
> You can depend on Jon Meinecke to examine all sides of an issue and never
> come to any conclusions about anything - except to remind us how fair-minded
> he is of course!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>

Plonk.

--
-------------------------
"Work like no one is watching,
Dance like you've never been hurt, and
Love like you don't need the money"

\
=8{B
\

 

[Mike Causer]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:22:51 -0700, cr113 wrote:

> I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

That "common opinion" seems to be held be people who don't ride 'bents.
Mine climbs hills at identical speed to my lightest upright, spinning a
low gear on both. Because it's faster on the flat and downhill overall
trip times are about 5% faster.


Mike

 

[Jon Meinecke]

"Hull 697" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Those things can't climb."
>
> I LOVE to hear that at the beginning of a group ride. It's nearly
> always from someone who has been riding less than a year, because there
> is someone around here - I have not met him - who is rumored to be an
> absolute monster of a hill climber on his bent.

Likewise here. People ride bikes for a variety of reasons. Some people
are more competitive than others. We were at a charity bike rally. A
car pulled up with bikes on top and team logos from the big bike shop
in N Dallas. The guys got out of the car and lifted the bikes ($$$$)
of the rack with two fingers. These were serious riders, with serious
bikes. Last we saw them was at the front of the pack.

We were among the last riders to finish the 100K that day,-- of course
we stopped to help a guy with bike repairs for 15-20 minutes. And
later I had some mechanical problems with my bike.

> This I hear from some roadies I only speak with at the beginnings of
> rides - they sustain 22+ mph which is way beyond me. Therefore, I weigh
> in on the side of "it's not the bike, it's the engine." That's certainly
> true for me.

I can't approach 22 mph sustained. But don't blame the bike... %^)

I'd guess I've ridden more miles recumbently in the past 8 years than
I rode upright even in four times that many years. Riding more means
being in better shape and climbing better. For many of us, if a bike
is fun and comfortable to ride, upright or recumbent, we will ride more
and be in better shape.

> OTOH, I go uphill faster than many of the weekend warriors around here.
>

I ride recreationally with a couple of upright riders, younger than I.
We manage to arrive at a speed that we can be comfortable with.
They're faster than me some days, and I them, others.

> Someone else says, "Don't Upgrade, Go Up Grades."

I was riding with a friend letting him test ride my recumbents. I had
loaned him my BikeE for a few weeks and then we went riding one
Saturday. He thought the BikeE was a slower bike than the Tour Easy,
(it is) We switched bikes. Then he saw the BikeE was faster. %^)

This hasn't been reposted in a while,-- I'm not sure of the original
source:

A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning
from the market, riding their bicycles. When they
arrived at the monastery and had dismounted, the
teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding
your bicycles?"

The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying
the sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have
to carry them on my back!" The teacher praised
the first student, "You are a smart boy! When
you grow old, you will not walk hunched over like
I do."

The second student replied, "I love to watch the
trees and fields pass by as I roll down the path!"
The teacher commended the second student, "Your
eyes are open, and you see the world."

The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle,
I am content to chant nam myoho renge kyo." The
teacher gave praise to the third student, "Your
mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel."

The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle,
I live in harmony with all sentient beings." The
teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth student,
"You are riding on the golden path of non-harming."

The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to
ride my bicycle." The teacher sat at the feet of the
fifth student and said, "I am your student!"

-- attributed May/June 1989 Utne Reader, and
Shawn Gosieski, New Cyclist, Fall 1988,
and others...

Jon Meinecke

 

[duh]

I agree. also all the ones that must want to chime in with "me too".

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>
>
>>part of the problem is most people see slow geeky people on bents and
>>they are slow all the time. only lately are faster bents getting out
>>there and faster riders.
>>plus some bents climb better then others. the ones that climb well
>>are usually over 2k and usually way over.
>>a couple of expensive examples are the carbent and the stiletto. both
>>are great on hills but are about 5k.
>
>
> The real problem here is that Steve Knight does not know the first thing
> about how to write a message to a newsgroup. He apparently never heard of
> capital letters and how they should be used. Christ, he does not even
> capitalize his own last name 'knight' although I do note that 'Steve' is
> capitalized.
>
> Is the above all one paragraph or several? That is another deep mystery for
> him that should have been solved in grade school. But at least he does put
> periods at the end of his sentences, so that is something I guess.
>
> What good does it do to have some good thinking if you can't put it in good
> prose. The two go together if you want to communicate anything to anybody.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>


--
-------------------------
"Work like no one is watching,
Dance like you've never been hurt, and
Love like you don't need the money"

\
=8{B
\

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Jon Meinecke wrote:
>
> This hasn't been reposted in a while,-- I'm not sure of the original
> source:
>
> A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning
> from the market, riding their bicycles. When they
> arrived at the monastery and had dismounted, the
> teacher asked the students, "Why are you riding
> your bicycles?"
>
> The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying
> the sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have
> to carry them on my back!" The teacher praised
> the first student, "You are a smart boy! When
> you grow old, you will not walk hunched over like
> I do."
>
> The second student replied, "I love to watch the
> trees and fields pass by as I roll down the path!"
> The teacher commended the second student, "Your
> eyes are open, and you see the world."
>
> The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle,
> I am content to chant nam myoho renge kyo." The
> teacher gave praise to the third student, "Your
> mind will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel."
>
> The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle,
> I live in harmony with all sentient beings." The
> teacher was pleased, and said to the fourth student,
> "You are riding on the golden path of non-harming."
>
> The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to
> ride my bicycle." The teacher sat at the feet of the
> fifth student and said, "I am your student!"
>
> -- attributed May/June 1989 Utne Reader, and
> Shawn Gosieski, New Cyclist, Fall 1988,
> and others...

The sixth student said, "I ride my bicycle because I want people to
look up to me and say 'Wow! He looks really good up there!' The
teacher replied: 'Go away, Fabrizio!'" - (Dave "Legs Larry"
Larrington?)

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Post Free or Die!

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Jon Meinecke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <[email protected]> wrote
> >>I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
> >> appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
> >> uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?
> >
> > It has been discussed.
>
> Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
>
> > Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
> > the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
> > height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
> > transmission).
>
> Only Mr. Sherman, the civil engineer, will appreciate these lessons in
> physics! The rest of us don't give a hoot about any of it. Hey, why not give
> us a mathematical formula with letters and numbers so we can be completely
> dumfounded? Or better yet, why don't you go over to that technical newsgroup
> where they like to pretend they are scientific.

limit GPA -> 0, ENG = BA, LAS

where

GPA = Grade Point Average
ENG = Engineering
BA = Bachelor of Arts
LAS = Liberal Arts and Sciences

> > Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
> > to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
> > Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
> > losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
> > differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
> > the power input.
>
> Yes, but everything else being equal, uprights climb hills much better than
> recumbents. This is something you will never hear Jon Meinecke admit because
> he has spent thousands of dollars on his recumbents and by God they had
> better be faster or else!
>
> > Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
> > on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
> > ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
> > or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
> > now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
> > mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
> > may not be large or sustainable.
>
> Does anyone think you are as fast sitting down on a bike as you are standing
> up out of the saddle? Especially going uphill?

There is evidence based on testing that alternating between sitting and
standing while climbing on an upright bicycle is faster than either
sitting only or standing only. The hypothesis is that varying position
allows partial rest of different muscle groups.

> > I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
> > than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
> > in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
> > many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
> > mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
> > advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
> > *long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
> > of some recumbents.
>
> Do you believe him when he says he is faster on his recumbent than he was on
> his upright - going uphill? What was he riding, a Schwinn Varsity?
>
> Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do with
> going fast uphill?...

For a recreational rider producing an average power of 100-150 watts
while climbing, the effect of aerodynamics is insignificant. However,
for a professional class rider producing an average power of 400-450
watts, the difference will be significant up to a fairly steep grade.
Therefore, a very strong rider on a state of the art performance
recumbent MIGHT be competitive on a hilly course compared to a similar
strength rider on a lightweight upright, especially since the upright
climbing position has a very high frontal area. At this time, there is
insufficient data to determine how competitive recumbents might be with
uprights in a professional racing situation on a course with
significant climbing sections.

It should also be noted that if a hypothetical recumbent rider is
evenly matched with upright riders on the flat sections due to an
aerodynamic advantage, it will mean that he/she is weaker than his/her
riding companions. If the recumbent bicycle is the equal of the upright
bicycles in climbing performance, the recumbent will APPEAR to have a
climbing disadvantage due to the weaker rider (the same hold true for
upright tandems compared to upright single bicycles).
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Post Free or Die!

 

[Hull 697]

The correct bike is the one you will ride. Someone on the forums has that in their signature.

I feel that the only person worthy of competeing against is myself. The excuses all go away when I am striving to beat my personal best. The guy I just "beat" up the hill may not have known there was a race.

I ride a 'bent because I dislike pain caused by factors external to my effort, ie; butt, back, neck, shoulder, wrist, etc. After buying one I admit, I also enjoy the attention the unusual brings.

If riding a Penny Farthing twists your crank, ride one. Don't worry about being slow uphill if you will ride more. Should you turn in to one of those hill climbing monsters that give the lie to the common opinion good for you. Should you decide to spin up hills at 2 mph, good for you. Get off and walk up until you develop the legs to ride up.

It's all better than watching TV while your fashionable, but totally uncomfortable, bike gathers dust in the garage.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do
>> with
>> going fast uphill?...
>
> For a recreational rider producing an average power of 100-150 watts
> while climbing, the effect of aerodynamics is insignificant. However,
> for a professional class rider producing an average power of 400-450
> watts, the difference will be significant up to a fairly steep grade.
> Therefore, a very strong rider on a state of the art performance
> recumbent MIGHT be competitive on a hilly course compared to a similar
> strength rider on a lightweight upright, especially since the upright
> climbing position has a very high frontal area. At this time, there is
> insufficient data to determine how competitive recumbents might be with
> uprights in a professional racing situation on a course with
> significant climbing sections.

I will believe it when I see it and not until. Pyrenees, anyone?

> It should also be noted that if a hypothetical recumbent rider is
> evenly matched with upright riders on the flat sections due to an
> aerodynamic advantage, it will mean that he/she is weaker than his/her
> riding companions. If the recumbent bicycle is the equal of the upright
> bicycles in climbing performance, the recumbent will APPEAR to have a
> climbing disadvantage due to the weaker rider (the same hold true for
> upright tandems compared to upright single bicycles).

Folks, this is what is known as sophistry. Mr. Sherman is very good at this
sort of thing. Unfortunately for him, I have the necessary brain power not
to be bamboozled by it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[[email protected]]

mike vore wrote:

> Probably for equal payloads. The I gather that most DFs are 20# or under
> while 'bents are closer to 40#. But looking at the gross weight there is only
> 20# difference - or roughly 10%. But then most DF riders seem to be younger
> and lighter so the gross weight may differ by lots more.

Does a 10% difference in weight mean a 10% difference in speed while
climbing? Maybe a 10% increase in weight slows you down by 50%?

I guess the only true test would be for a rider to train on a df and
time his speed uphill. Then the same rider needs to train on a
recumbent of the same weight and time his speed up the same hill.

 

[M. Bakunin]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real problem here is that Steve Knight does not know the first thing
> about how to write a message to a newsgroup. He apparently never heard of
> capital letters and how they should be used.

once again you find a way to affirm your moronic feeble attempt at
thinking. steve writes the way he wants, when he wants. you have a
problem with someone else choices? well, just don't read it.

> What good does it do to have some good thinking

how would YOU know?

> prose. The two go together if you want to communicate anything to anybody.

well i think you're a moron, and you demonstrate it in every single
posting you do. and the proof what you're saying is pure ******** is
that you'll perfectly understand what i write, and probably will not be
able to refrain from answering.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[Edward Dolan]

"M. Bakunin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The real problem here is that Steve Knight does not know the first thing
>> about how to write a message to a newsgroup. He apparently never heard of
>> capital letters and how they should be used.
>
> once again you find a way to affirm your moronic feeble attempt at
> thinking. steve writes the way he wants, when he wants. you have a
> problem with someone else choices? well, just don't read it.

I can see that M. Bakunin, the anarchist, is a soul mate of Steve Knight -
and equally dumb and stupid.

>> What good does it do to have some good thinking
>
> how would YOU know?
>
>> prose. The two go together if you want to communicate anything to
>> anybody.
>
> well i think you're a moron, and you demonstrate it in every single
> posting you do. and the proof what you're saying is pure ******** is
> that you'll perfectly understand what i write, and probably will not be
> able to refrain from answering.

It is just as easy to write the correct way as it is too screw it up like
you and Steve do. I do not enjoy looking at the English language all out of
whack. Either write it right or get lost you dimwit!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

PS. Pray tell, why do you need anonymity on cycling newsgroups? There are no
murdering bomb throwing anarchists on these groups - yourself excluded of
course.

 

[Hull 697]

I can see that M. Bakunin, the anarchist, is a soul mate of Steve Knight - and equally dumb and stupid.

How does one deduce that Bakunin cannot speak? Further, his presumed physical handicap has no bearing on the discussion and rendered the above sentence nonsense.

Please explain how someone can be equally dumb=without speech and stupid=of low intellectual capacity?

I love this one: "Lern to spel gooder, Git Hookt On Fonix"