|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths." Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your bike enough to prevent further hear disease. Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention". Risk just means chance. .. |
Ads |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:44:45 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 07:32:10 -0700, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote: On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out. Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland has been invaded. As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising 1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on. You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Possibly, but my understandind is that invading tibet was a bit like Napolean/hitler invading Moscow. At the time is was a long long way over a narrow trail up a very high mountain. I believe that is primarily from the south and access from the north or east is somewhat flatter. G.B. invaded Tibet in 1903 and captured the country and than signed a treaty with China in 1906 ceding Tibet to the Chinese. In 1911 Tibet expelled the Chinese and was independent until 1950 when the Chinese retook the country. Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world. Only if it has the transport advantage to overcome any native resistance. US Vs Vietnam comes to mind as well as Ukraine Vs Russia. China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_c ountry You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. Isn't that all moot with your current Nuke'em President? By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity. They make great hootchie poles when you run out of bullets for them. My 2c is that should US society collapse, the population will implode from starvation as 99% of peole willl not know how to grow food and the rest will be struggling to grow some in time to avoid starvation. As this is a bnicycle group, we should now discuss which is the best bicycle you should stock op with to trade for food afdter the apocalypse. -- Jay Beattie. -- cheers, John B. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. Only if it has the transport advantage to overcome any native resistance. US Vs Vietnam comes to mind as well as Ukraine Vs Russia. Why would you mention Vietnam when you so obviously don't know anything about it? Isn't that all moot with your current Nuke'em President? Exactly where did that come from? Has this administration made any threats to anyone in the last 3 years? Rather quite the opposite. President Trump has opened serious peace discussions with North Korea. He has set forth trade negotiations on a common ground with Russia and China which would make them dependent upon peace. After Iran attacked shipping in the straits of Hormuz the President refused to allow the military to take actions that would harm more Iranians than their attack was worth. Really, you should at least know what is going on before making less than smart comments. They make great hootchie poles when you run out of bullets for them. My 2c is that should US society collapse, the population will implode from starvation as 99% of peole willl not know how to grow food and the rest will be struggling to grow some in time to avoid starvation. You don't know anything about farming either I see. So why are you commenting on it? As this is a bnicycle group, we should now discuss which is the best bicycle you should stock op with to trade for food afdter the apocalypse. You seem to be shaking in fear for no discernable reason. I suggest you get a tight hold on yourself. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:06:45 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths." Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your bike enough to prevent further hear disease. Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention". Risk just means chance. . Bicycle helmets in the STYROFOAM era did not save lives. That absolutely does NOT mean that they "do nothing". They prevent a lot of minor and painful injuries that could lead to more serious infections. With Trek's new Wavecell technology it remains to be seen whether they would be 48 times better than Styrofoam or not. If they are there is a moderate chance that they could save lives. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 8:38:35 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:06:45 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote: On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths." Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your bike enough to prevent further hear disease. Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention". Risk just means chance. . Bicycle helmets in the STYROFOAM era did not save lives. That absolutely does NOT mean that they "do nothing". They prevent a lot of minor and painful injuries that could lead to more serious infections. I saw that little man, News18, who is probably the thief Peter Howard under yet another name, slicing salami paper-thin in order to somehow, anyhow prove me wrong, but decided not to give him the satisfaction of responding. I'm bored by the good-for-nothing. With Trek's new Wavecell technology it remains to be seen whether they would be 48 times better than Styrofoam or not. If they are there is a moderate chance that they could save lives. I'm waiting a bit for more user-info on these Wavecell helmets before I replace my Citi, because they sound like the real goods. Andre Jute There's no rush. Time is eternal. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction: https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans 57,500, for a total of 132,715. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard). But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common, ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction. Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those "super Heroes"? Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes. In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom. -- cheers, John B. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction: https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans 57,500, for a total of 132,715. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard). But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common, ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction. Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those "super Heroes"? Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes. In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom. -- cheers, John B. I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that: "American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps." Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all. John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction: https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans 57,500, for a total of 132,715. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard). But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common, ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction. Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those "super Heroes"? Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes. In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom. Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon? That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one. Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against Migs. Again, you do not surprise me. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction: https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans 57,500, for a total of 132,715. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard). But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common, ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction. Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those "super Heroes"? Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes. In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom. -- cheers, John B. I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that: No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your statement that: " There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings". Note the word "landings". Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support, the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all "land". So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant "landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were talking about. entire Japanese Army for one single action. "American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps." Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all. John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct. Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations, they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army".. Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer. The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang, combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of 12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the military. The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations is 1 out of 10. Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the time - wrong. -- cheers, John B. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: I'm wondering if that was ever true? From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action. It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction: https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans 57,500, for a total of 132,715. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard). But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common, ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction. Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those "super Heroes"? Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes. In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom. Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon? But Tom, the stated intent of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor wasn't to invade the U.S. it was, and was so stated to be, an attempt to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet. By the way, your figures of 1.7 million men and the possibly invasion of the U.S. is delusional at best as while the Imperial Japanese Army strength in 1941 was 1.7 million, in some 51 divisions, 40 divisions of of these troops were stationed in China. So for your imaginary invasion of the U.S. some 11 divisions, about 20% of the army was available. That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one. Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against Migs. I think I'd have to ask for a little backup for that statement as to my personal knowledge there were no F-51 units assigned to actual air combat and the units stationed in Korea were assigned to ground support missions and nothing I've read to date indicates that the F-51 was particularly effective against the Chinese MIG-15's. Again, you do not surprise me. -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trek X01/Bontrager Race wheels | GrandTheftVelo | Techniques | 7 | August 16th 08 12:48 AM |
Trek Fuel superior technology | LIBERATOR | Mountain Biking | 1 | September 1st 06 09:58 PM |
FS: Trek/Bontrager carbon fork | Charles Stickle | Marketplace | 0 | October 3rd 05 12:22 AM |
Stock Trek Tires (Bontrager) | Badger_South | General | 5 | June 2nd 04 07:24 PM |
The secret of Trek's OCLV technology . . . | Stan Shankman | Techniques | 21 | May 12th 04 02:50 PM |