Conti Contact Security vs Schwalbe Marathon Plus cycle tires

!

On Feb 26, 7:55*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
* * * * * * *?

I aghree

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
Universal describes a $14 pasela as "commuter" Universal's
nomenclature is limited.

A Top Contact is available as an alternative to a Security. A
comparison to Schwalbe's best touring tire or GT commuter is welcome.
And let's rid ourselves of "is" isssssssssssssszzzzzz. Now there's a
crappy word: is. accchhhh! happy?
[...]
"No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get vary far in life not saying 'is'." -
Head Knight who says Ni.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 26, 7:55*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
* * * * * * *?

I ahgree,
normatively off course.
we do not disregard the nuance

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Feb 26, 6:40*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
Colin Campbell writes:

*http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticy...security.shtml

Continental, Germany tells us the Contact Security is

"Designed for industrial applications, the ContactSecurity can
also perform well in everyday use. *Its massive puncture-proof
breaker was developed to resist metal cuttings and shards on
factory grounds. *In view of its tough construction, it is not a
comfortable touring tyre with low rolling resistance, but it does
effectively ward off gravel and shards on short stretches in the
city."

The page also says "The tread derives it¹s superb function from a
closer look at nature¹s solutions. *Animal paws were the model for
designing the tread pattern and it¹s surface!"

How many animals have wheels and travel primarily on pavement?

And how many animals misuse "it's" twice in two sentences? *I
thought the UK had something to do with the English language.

That language is no longer taught in schools as is apparent from
(lie/lay), (effect/impact), (affect/impact) and other speech
embellishments "overwhelming majority" aka "most" that we see all the
time.

Its the overwhelming majority of these kinds of things that give
wreck.bike a lack of clarity.

aka

Most of these things make wreck.bike unclear.

I enjoy going after thoughtless qualifiers such as
`very unique' or `potentially dangerous'. *Check out
books on style. There is only one message in all of
them. When you meet a qualifier on the road, kill it.

That's advice for dullards. Style is not about being correctly dull
but about making the rules work for you, and especially to make them
work for you strikingly when you break them, which presupposes that
you know the rules and when to break them to best effect. One of the
good reasons to use modifiers rarely is to protect the impact of the
few you do use.

Duh!

Of your two examples, dear Michael, "very unique" is a logical
impossibility which doesn't need the modifier rule to earn a death

Yes, I know that. Did not want to go at length with such
guidance as `never qualify an absolute' etc.

sentence, and "potentially dangerous" is perfectly good English where
the context permits, as in "a decision that is potentially dangerous
because we do not yet know all the facts which will bear on the
outcome".

It seems every time I bring up this one, everyone
disagrees with me. I am the only one on the planet who
holds this view. Here is the reasoning. When it comes
time to make a decision on a course of action, what is
the difference between potentially dangerous and
dangerous? If we are told something is potentially
dangerous, are we not obliged to discover and to assess
risk?

What is somebody doing by telling us something is
potentially dangerous? What good is the advice? Unless
it is accompanied by actual bad outcomes it is useless.
And if bad outcomes are catalogued, then it is
dangerous. Meanwhile the cautioner can always say, "I
only said it was _potentially_ dangerous." If it is
potentially dangerous, tell me what the risks are. If
their are risks, it is _dangerous_. If somebody tells
me it is potentially dangerous, I am obliged to treat
is as if it _is_ dangerous. Therefore it is dangerous.

--
Michael Press

the NYT pubbed a backcountry ski traverse over and beyond Whistler in
today's Travels, noting the trip, guided, is snot for fools.

off course, there are other downhills there, suitable for fools.

but NYT left that out.