Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:41:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:46:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:


I've got several papers on the subject filed here. The _least_
optimistic was de Hartog, et. al., "Do The Benefits of Cycling Outweigh
the Risks?" Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 118 no.8, August 2010.
They estimated longevity benefits of cycling outweighed risks by 7 to
1 for Britain. Other papers assessed benefits vs. risks by other factors
(e.g. medical costs, years of life gained vs. lost, etc.) and came in at
18:1 benefit, 20:1 benefit, 77:1 benefit, etc. I'm not aware of any such
study that found a net detriment to bicy cling. Not even close.


Yes, I read the abstract of the report I believe you are referring to.
And to be frank, I see a great many paragraphs that read things like :
"On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were
substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for
individuals shifting their mode of transport. "

Note the "estimated".

Or "Promoting cycling for health reasons implies that the health
benefits of cycling should outweigh the risks of cycling. Although
society may benefit from a shift from private car use to bicycle use
(e.g., reduced air pollution emission), disadvantages to individuals
may occur. Although individuals may benefit from increased physical
activity, at the same time they inhale more pollutants because of
increased breathing rates. The risks of being involved in traffic
accidents may increase, as well as the severity of an accident.

Note "implies"

John, if you're not familiar with the use of terms such as "estimated"
or "implies" in research papers, you're simply not familiar with
research papers. You need much more experience reading them.

Ah, you mean something like a bridge design that in the last sentence
says "it is estimated that this bridge will be strong enough"?


No, it's not just an informal judgment. The methods, data and
computations differ markedly, but are quite technical and serious.
Despite the different methods, all yielded positive results for bicycling.

I would really like to read a report that quoted actual data.

To begin with, ask your librarian about obtaining a copy of the paper I
cited. The, perhaps, ask about help finding similar papers on that topic.

I did read an abstract and it was full of "it is assumed", "it is
estimated", etc.

Rather like the study that "proved" that it was impossible for a
bumblebee to fly.... Perfectly good physics that proved that a
bumblebee weighing one gram and with a wing area of 1 cm. sq. had a
wing loading so high that flight couldn't be sustained.

In about 1970 someone came along and demonstrated that a small
insect's wings don't work the same way a Boeing 747's wings do.

Lucky that as otherwise we'd be inundated with bumblebees walking
about.

Understand, though, that for practical reasons studies on almost any
topic give summaries of data, not the actual data set. I've known people
(that is, qualified researchers) who have obtained full data sets from
authors upon request. However, I suspect the reams of numbers you'd
receive might be a bit incomprehensible unless you processed them
through your own statistical software.

Data [presented as "It is assumed" or "it is estimated".

Oh well, whatever floats your boat... or in this case whatever proves
your point.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.



WTF is wrong with a 60 year old man on an 11 speed CF bike?

--
duane

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:36:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:41:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:46:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I've got several papers on the subject filed here. The _least_
optimistic was de Hartog, et. al., "Do The Benefits of Cycling Outweigh
the Risks?" Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 118 no.8, August 2010.
They estimated longevity benefits of cycling outweighed risks by 7 to
1 for Britain. Other papers assessed benefits vs. risks by other factors
(e.g. medical costs, years of life gained vs. lost, etc.) and came in at
18:1 benefit, 20:1 benefit, 77:1 benefit, etc. I'm not aware of any such
study that found a net detriment to bicy cling. Not even close.


Yes, I read the abstract of the report I believe you are referring to.
And to be frank, I see a great many paragraphs that read things like :
"On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were
substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for
individuals shifting their mode of transport. "

Note the "estimated".

Or "Promoting cycling for health reasons implies that the health
benefits of cycling should outweigh the risks of cycling. Although
society may benefit from a shift from private car use to bicycle use
(e.g., reduced air pollution emission), disadvantages to individuals
may occur. Although individuals may benefit from increased physical
activity, at the same time they inhale more pollutants because of
increased breathing rates. The risks of being involved in traffic
accidents may increase, as well as the severity of an accident.

Note "implies"

John, if you're not familiar with the use of terms such as "estimated"
or "implies" in research papers, you're simply not familiar with
research papers. You need much more experience reading them.

Ah, you mean something like a bridge design that in the last sentence
says "it is estimated that this bridge will be strong enough"?


No, it's not just an informal judgment. The methods, data and
computations differ markedly, but are quite technical and serious.
Despite the different methods, all yielded positive results for bicycling.

I would really like to read a report that quoted actual data.

To begin with, ask your librarian about obtaining a copy of the paper I
cited. The, perhaps, ask about help finding similar papers on that topic.

I did read an abstract and it was full of "it is assumed", "it is
estimated", etc.

That's standard scientific language, John.

Rather like the study that "proved" that it was impossible for a
bumblebee to fly.... Perfectly good physics that proved that a
bumblebee weighing one gram and with a wing area of 1 cm. sq. had a
wing loading so high that flight couldn't be sustained.

In about 1970 someone came along and demonstrated that a small
insect's wings don't work the same way a Boeing 747's wings do.

Lucky that as otherwise we'd be inundated with bumblebees walking
about.

You should do more fact checking. Snopes helps.
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.



WTF is wrong with a 60 year old man on an 11 speed CF bike?

The actual statement was "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11
speed, racing bike"

I was replying to the statement "is more of that asinine juvenile
braggart behavior", unless, of course, you think that 60 year old guy
has a chance in the TdeF.
--
Cheers,

John B.

rOn Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:36:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:41:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:46:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I've got several papers on the subject filed here. The _least_
optimistic was de Hartog, et. al., "Do The Benefits of Cycling Outweigh
the Risks?" Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 118 no.8, August 2010.
They estimated longevity benefits of cycling outweighed risks by 7 to
1 for Britain. Other papers assessed benefits vs. risks by other factors
(e.g. medical costs, years of life gained vs. lost, etc.) and came in at
18:1 benefit, 20:1 benefit, 77:1 benefit, etc. I'm not aware of any such
study that found a net detriment to bicy cling. Not even close.


Yes, I read the abstract of the report I believe you are referring to.
And to be frank, I see a great many paragraphs that read things like :
"On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were
substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for
individuals shifting their mode of transport. "

Note the "estimated".

Or "Promoting cycling for health reasons implies that the health
benefits of cycling should outweigh the risks of cycling. Although
society may benefit from a shift from private car use to bicycle use
(e.g., reduced air pollution emission), disadvantages to individuals
may occur. Although individuals may benefit from increased physical
activity, at the same time they inhale more pollutants because of
increased breathing rates. The risks of being involved in traffic
accidents may increase, as well as the severity of an accident.

Note "implies"

John, if you're not familiar with the use of terms such as "estimated"
or "implies" in research papers, you're simply not familiar with
research papers. You need much more experience reading them.

Ah, you mean something like a bridge design that in the last sentence
says "it is estimated that this bridge will be strong enough"?


No, it's not just an informal judgment. The methods, data and
computations differ markedly, but are quite technical and serious.
Despite the different methods, all yielded positive results for bicycling.

I would really like to read a report that quoted actual data.

To begin with, ask your librarian about obtaining a copy of the paper I
cited. The, perhaps, ask about help finding similar papers on that topic.

I did read an abstract and it was full of "it is assumed", "it is
estimated", etc.

That's standard scientific language, John.

Rather like the study that "proved" that it was impossible for a
bumblebee to fly.... Perfectly good physics that proved that a
bumblebee weighing one gram and with a wing area of 1 cm. sq. had a
wing loading so high that flight couldn't be sustained.

In about 1970 someone came along and demonstrated that a small
insect's wings don't work the same way a Boeing 747's wings do.

Lucky that as otherwise we'd be inundated with bumblebees walking
about.

You should do more fact checking. Snopes helps.
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

- Frank Krygowski

Yes, I am aware of that but I also distinctly remember an article in
Reader's Digest (I believe) about the MIT student who "proved that the
bumblebee couldn't fly" and a year or so later another article stating
that another MIT student had proved that a bumblebee could fly.

That is one of the things about getting old. You remember things that
did happen :-)

As an example, I also remember an article in Mechanics Illustrated (I
think) dated about 1942 0r 43 about how to tell a Japanese from a
Chinese (as they both have squinchy eyes it is hard to tell ). See a
Japanese has a wider separation between the large toe and the next toe
because of those funny "tabi" that they wear.

Of course, when I actually traveled to countries where shoes weren't
universally worn I discovered that wasn't true either, but then there
wasn't any Snopes available to tell us differently :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.



WTF is wrong with a 60 year old man on an 11 speed CF bike?

The actual statement was "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11
speed, racing bike"

I was replying to the statement "is more of that asinine juvenile
braggart behavior", unless, of course, you think that 60 year old guy
has a chance in the TdeF.
--
Cheers,

John B.



So if the 60 year old guy doesn’t have a chance in the TDF he shouldn’t be
riding an 11 speed CF bike or he would be guilty of asinine braggart
behavior?

--
duane

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:58:28 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.



WTF is wrong with a 60 year old man on an 11 speed CF bike?

The actual statement was "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11
speed, racing bike"

I was replying to the statement "is more of that asinine juvenile
braggart behavior", unless, of course, you think that 60 year old guy
has a chance in the TdeF.
--
Cheers,

John B.



So if the 60 year old guy doesn’t have a chance in the TDF he shouldn’t be
riding an 11 speed CF bike or he would be guilty of asinine braggart
behavior?

To each his own. But Frank wrote:

"And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior."

And I wrote: "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing
bike".

And you don't see the similarity? Each party is playing
make-believe... unless of course the 60 year old guy actually does
have a chance in the TdeF.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/10/2017 7:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:58:28 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:57:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:53:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/6/2017 10:41 PM, John B. wrote:


But why should all gun owners be penalized because a tiny minority of
gun owners shoot a bunch of people?

Because the privately owned national arsenal is what enables these mass
killings. And much of that arsenal - the rapid fire, high capacity
portion - has no legitimate purpose other than killing lots of people
rapidly, or practicing or pretending to do the same by blasting targets,
many of which feature human torsos.

Fertilizer has obvious utility aside from making bombs. Knives have
obvious utility aside from stabbing people. Chainsaws have obvious
utility aside from attacking people. That's not true of rapid fire guns.


Now tell us what the obvious utility of the bicycle is? Other then to
allow a small number of people to participate in a pastime.

It's a transportation device.

Of course it is. In the sense that one can travel using it. But you
can equally ride on a horse, or a donkey, or be dragged by a husky, or
wear skis or snow shoes. People over here have even ridden in on
elephants. None of which makes them logical for transportation.


Certainly in the less developed countries it still serves as a primary
means of transportation but in the U.S.? I notice that everyone
posting on this bicycle site seems to own one or more automobiles, so
obvious a bicycle is not their primary means of transportation.

I make more transportation trips in a car than on a bike. I also make
more transportation trips in a car than in a bus. That does not mean a
bus is not a transportation device.

Cars are used for recreation, too. As with bikes, a car's recreation use
doesn't disqualify it as a transportation device.

It would seem that one guy punching holes in a piece of paper with a
gun is not so different from a guy that rides a bicycle when the
weather is nice and the distance isn't too far.

And I don't have a problem with most of that "punching holes in paper."
I've done quite a lot of it.

OTOH, whether motor vehicles count as transportation or toys, I do
object to some of their uses. I object to "drifting" practice or
exhibitions, especially on public streets. I object to crotch-rocket
motorcycle stunts, not only on public streets. Hell, I object to TV ads
for SUVs that show them sliding sideways and/or spinning tires, raising
great plumes of dust or splashes of water. I think driving should be
done responsibly, and aggressive driving should be shamed.

In general, I think there's far too much glorification of machine-aided
macho behavior, the stuff that allows men to pretend "Watch out, get out
of my way, don't mess with me, because I'm tough as nails despite my 80
pounds of belly fat."

And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being is
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior.

Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing bike".

Frank, I'm beginning to believe that you are turning into a crotchety
old man. GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE.

--
Cheers,

John B.



WTF is wrong with a 60 year old man on an 11 speed CF bike?

The actual statement was "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11
speed, racing bike"

I was replying to the statement "is more of that asinine juvenile
braggart behavior", unless, of course, you think that 60 year old guy
has a chance in the TdeF.
--
Cheers,

John B.



So if the 60 year old guy doesn’t have a chance in the TDF he shouldn’t be
riding an 11 speed CF bike or he would be guilty of asinine braggart
behavior?

To each his own. But Frank wrote:

"And I think blasting a rapid fire gun at a replica of a human being
is more of that asinine juvenile braggart behavior."

And I wrote: "Rather like a 60 year old man on a CF, 11 speed, "racing
bike".

And you don't see the similarity? Each party is playing
make-believe... unless of course the 60 year old guy actually does
have a chance in the TdeF.
--

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 5:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:

That's what I thought you meant. The world according to slow johnny.

What is that supposed to mean? Frank is showing nothing more than his fear of guns. He tells us that even though more people were killed with one single truck than in Las Vegas that ~"cars are useful and guns are not".

Now you appear to be saying that you could win the Tour de France or that someone that is 60 would at least have a chance.

To each his own and if you want to ride a super-light CF bike that's fine. And if you're crippled from it coming apart don't look for any sympathy here.

But I should also say that the problems with carbon fiber are massively overstated. If you change out every four or five years you would probably never have a problem. Probably.