wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:33 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:07:51 -0700, jim beam



wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:39:27 -0700 (PDT), pm
wrote:
On Aug 23, 7:48?pm, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:30:24 -0700 (PDT), pm
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e4627d53510adc
Dear PM,
Thanks for looking into things, but consider the results.
First you had to decide to search for indexed + headset + crash.
(There are, after all, quite a few other possibilities.)
It was the first thing I typed in to Google. I did not consider any
other possibilities. Perhaps you can consider some other
possibilities, and report on the results? You can either find more
incidents, or no more.
And here's what that search finds:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...?group=rec.bic...
You have to pick that example out of 19 hits, most of which seem to be
about how the poster thinks that the indexing is _not_ related to the
crash.
I have to pick that example out of 1 hit. It is the first hit.
There are, of course, some other hits relating to a post I made where
I have bent fork and an indexed headset, with no crash. Of course I
don't think my indexed headset is relate to a crash -- I didn't crash.
If that's all that google will turn up, it's unimpressive.
I don't actually care about whether headsets dent on impact. What's
really unimpressive is that apparently grown men will spend hours
shouting "but you need to do it!" at each other, when the task in
question is something that takes all of 10 seconds.
The situation is similar to someone implying that there are _lots_ of
examples by telling everyone else to look them up.
An extraordinarily fast way to refute such an implication is to
actually attempt to look them up.
-pm
Dear PM,
Actually, it's an extraordinarily _slow_ way to refute such
things--proving a negative is darned hard.
If Jim knows of such examples in the archives, he should find them and
cite them. If he doesn't, there's no way for us to tell if he's
dishonest, exaggerating, mistaken, bluffing, or just using a search
string that no one else thought of.
There are no black swans in my neck of the woods. I could search
forever without finding any, but that doesn't refute their existence.
You have to search for them in Australia.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl, with respect, i recall previous posts with exactly this
corroboration from previous arguments on this subject, so i know they're
there. whether i can be bothered to mess about searching for them,
especially when the questioner is not only a google expert but
apparently intent on just wasting electrons on b.s. black swan
arguments, especially after pm's posts, is an entirely different matter.
Dear Jim,

So you can't be bothered to support your own claim and it's up to
everyone else to do so?

Okay, I'll make the obvious counter-claim.

There are scarcely any such posts claiming impact damage in the
archives, and the few that can be found by laborious searching are
obviously vague, mistaken, and even dishonest.

I can't be bothered to mess about searching for them.

Last year I collided with a large tree-trunk, horizontal, at quite
high speed after momentarily losing it during a singletrack descent.
The wheel sustained no apparent damage. Fork sustained a slight bend.
Headset was broken and ejected completely from the headtube, which was
destroyed.


ah, but was it brinelled?