#161
|
|||
|
|||
engamarus says:
Ummmmm! Notice that my mother language is Catalan, not English, and it's not the same. My English is limited . Your English is WAY better than my Catalan. Actually, your English is way better than most native English-speakers'. ;-) Steve |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Aug 2004 20:56:12 GMT, Stephen Baker =
wrote: TBF says: My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huff= y. Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike! But did they stay with ya, or go running towards the first 10-speed = rider they saw?.... ;-) Amb rule #1056 states: Any "chicks" under the age of 11 must be called = = little girls, not to be confused grrls, gurls or girlies. -- = Slacker |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Baker" wrote in message ... TBF says: My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy. Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike! But did they stay with ya, or go running towards the first 10-speed rider they saw?.... ;-) Well the last one I picked up with that bike married me after university. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Slacker" wrote in message newspsc5j3paam83lxu@slacker... On 22 Aug 2004 20:56:12 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote: TBF says: My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy. Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike! But did they stay with ya, or go running towards the first 10-speed rider they saw?.... ;-) Amb rule #1056 states: Any "chicks" under the age of 11 must be called little girls, not to be confused grrls, gurls or girlies. -- Slacker By the time I got to "girlies" it was a Bianci 10 speed, paint and tires matched in color. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
TBF says:
Well the last one I picked up with that bike married me after university. In that case I'm gonna bet the bike had little to do with it. ;-) Steve |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:01:02 +0200, bomba wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:27:09 -0400, Dan Volker wrote: I did not say I was the one doing the toilet dipping to guys like JD...I was just saying that guys like JD would have had that happening to them, if they had attended USF, or any other big school.... It was the obvious reaction which would occur when someone like JD forgot himself ( forgot that he was a pencil neck) and talked obnoxiously to the wrong people. I would have enjoyed watching this scenario, if JD had attended USF. They would not have beaten him up or actually had a fight with him--that would not occur with someone as physically pathetic as JD. "physically pathetic"?! Holy **** Dan, how big are you? Yeah, JD's one little pussy all right! The point I am trying to make is that guys that "could" talk like JD talks here on AMB---(i.e., guys that are physically capable of backing up the implied physical challenges JD's posts contain) What, like his ability to ride long and far on a mountain bike? would not actually talk like that in real life. Guys with this physical capability learn early on, that tough talk causes real fights, and its not smart to be picking these on a daily basis, even if you can win them. Maybe I've missed something, but you appear to be the only one talking about fighting. True again. JD may not be the nicest guy on AMB and I don't always agree with his remarks, but that's his deal. However two things that are /CERTAINLY not/ in question are his riding ability and his size. If it were me (i.e., a little friendly advice), I wouldn't go jumping up and down and yelling about things that I've *obviously* got no clue about. Gman |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Aug 2004 02:14:19 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
engamarus says: I'm more worried about uphills behaviour, than downhills, as I think you always have to suffer in uphills, and have fun in downhills. I'd prefer less suffer than more fun . But obviously, I need more fun than a downhill with a hardtail. If you have to buy a full sus to have more "fun" than a hardtail or even (gasp!) a rigid bike, then you must be confusing speed with skill. Steve Well I dunno about that. So you say skill=fun and not speed=fun??? I disagree, they are both fun! Even tho I often reach for a rigid bike, the FS is awfully fun in much different ways. Speed *is* fun a lot of the time. There are lots of trails that I can just flow better with the springs. I don't have to be "on", just point and shoot baby! Something in the way? No problem...BAM and I'm over it (/especially/ with the Zoke). OTOH, skill is fun too, which is why lots of the AMB folks have rigid SS bikes. For the challenge... Gman "a little extra time on my hands this weekend" =) |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Aug 2004 00:19:56 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote:
engamarus says: In Collserola there are plenty of tracks that you can pass with a rigid bike or hardtail, but you don't enjoy them, because you were braking all the time and with a severe risk of falling due to plenty free rocks. Not about technics. A-hah! We obviously have a different concept of "fun". That sounds great to me. Life is all about the differences. ;-) (Vive la difference!) Steve I'll agree with both viewpoints. Took the rigid to Seattle and there were *definitely* times I needed a fork. If I rode there all the time, I'd very possibly put a fork on the SS. (gasp!) But it's fun to be purist too! G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? | yuri budilov | Techniques | 1 | April 4th 04 10:53 PM |
Klein vs. Trek (crossposted) | Lester Long | Techniques | 9 | September 29th 03 06:47 PM |
FA: TREK Aluminum Investment Cast Lugs & Tubing | The Ink Company | Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 03 01:08 AM |