"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue"

"tcmedara" wrote in message news:xfr9c.15168$oH2.12284@lakeread01...

[snip]

You ****ing hypocritical little weasel.

[snip]

Dear Tom,

Wasn't that how Pope Leo X invited Martin Luther
to Rome after he heard about the convenient new
Wittenberg wallpaper that could be nailed to a
church door?

Nostalgically,

Carl Fogel

Tim McNamara wrote:

...
Name calling doesn't change the facts, BTW. Neither does your anger
nor your emotional reasoning. Everybody that has disk brakes may
just have been hoodwinked by the companies that made them- those are
the people you should be challenging.

Should not the criticism be leveled at the fork manufacturers and not
the brake manufacturers?

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
(Dave Kahn) writes:

In British English "pavement" is usually used to mean "sidewalk",
hence the derogatory term "pavement cyclist".

Well, I wondered if it was something like that (I was aware of the
terminology, being a hostage of public television), but the poster's
e-mail address gives no indication of nationality.

The clue is that this thread is cross-posted to u.r.c.

--
Dave...

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:47:23 +0900, James Annan
blathered:

It's now a year since the QR/disk brake problem hit the headlines, and I
thought some of you might be interested in hearing how the manufacturers
are dealing with it.

I have no idea if this has cropped up elsewhere in the thread because,
frankly, I can't be arsed reading it. However, I do enjoy stirring the
pot, so here it is (again?):

http://www.whytebikes.com/whyte-2004...uSubCat=ne ws



Pete

(Gary Young) wrote:

snip
But your attitude seems to be, we could lift a finger, but we
don't want to spend the money. Better that our customers should pay
the price for our stupidity. Isn't that what you're saying? -- we
could fix the problem, but we won't. The only costs will be born by
someone else. We don't mind killing off a few customers as long as it
doesn't hurt our bottom line.
snip
I'm quite surprised to see you pursue this line. All I can say is that
if this is your idea of customer service, then I'll never buy one of
your frames.

Your (il)logical conclusions and inability to understand my position
are astonishing. You really "don't get it", do you?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara wrote:

Easy there, Buckwheat. It's obvious that James Annan's research into
the design flaw of disk brakes and forks has threatened your world
dramatically, and that you must lash out at him to regain your sense
of order and control. It's pathetic to watch.

That's funny, really, to think that my world has anything to do with disk
brakes. My sense of order and control have very little to do with the
silliness of USENET. What's really funny is that both my bikes have rim
brakes! I would say that your boy James is the one who leads the "church of
ejection force" true believers and feels threatened by the potential for
empirical information. I guess a FOIA request runs the risk of uncovering
some contradictory scripture. That's my point, and that's what is pathetic.
He's like the guy who stands outside a movie theater protesting the film but
refuses to go in and watch it.

You and everyone else who thinks that Annan should set up some kind of
research laboratory should stop hiding your heads in the sand, and
step up to the plate yourselves.

I'm not saying he should do anything of the sort, however the good Mr Annan
has shown a remarkable propensity to argue his case. It's an absolute non
sequiter at this point. Lab testing takes resources and expertise. A
simple FOIA means you write a letter and perhaps fill out a form or two.
Big difference there. This perhaps shows that the propensity to support the
case stops when it is confronted with cold, hard reality. Why does he
choose to retire from the discussion when he has the opportunity to prove
one of the key linchpins of his manufacturer/CPSC conspiricy? He is the
one who's made claims of stonewalling at the CPSC. It's all over his web
site. As I said previously, why does he avoid the opportunity to breach
that wall?

Stop being a lazy ****** taking
potshots at the guy who pointed out the problem, and turn your
attentions instead to the people who *created* the problem- and have
possibly put your lives and health at risk. Perhaps, while you're at
it, you should read Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" or watch the movie.

Lazy ******? I don't think that posts in a NG or on a website impart any
sort of an obligation on me That's the flaw in Annan's whole approach.
What he's saying is that he's opened the disucussion, posted what he knows,
draws conlusions and asserts that it's up to others to disprove him. That's
nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't. Again, rather than assert the
case against the CPSC, he's been offered an avenue to obtain the information
he claims has been withheld. He's so convinced the report is flawed, but
hasn't seen it. It strikes me that it would go a long way to bolster his
case. He's shown a marked propensity to engage in the debate, why does he
now refuse the opportunity to substantiate his claims. Are they perhaps not
as strong as he'd have us believe? What's the rest of the story? Having
been shown the door, he refuses to go through it, citing a desire to avoid
being a "performing bear." More indication -- much like his rejection of
empirical data collection -- that he's mind's made up and he doesn't want to
be confused with the facts.

This is not some ersatz court where the onus is on the accuser. Stop
treating it like one, since that doesn't further the discussion or
the remediation of the problem. Instead, hold accountable the makers
of the brakes and the forks since they have the ethical obligation to
ensure that their products are not inherently flawed or dangerous.

Nor is it some kangaroo court where every wild-eyed zealot can throw
assertions on the table and then challenge others to disprove them. I'm all
for holding the industry accountable, and if I was convinced of the dire
nature of the problem I'd be at the front of line. The FOIA request to the
CPSC is a step in that accounatability process. I mentioned that avenue to
Annan several days ago and it was ignored. Now the actual process has been
spelled out in this forum and Annan refuses to follow them. Why is that?
He accuses the CPSC of ignoring him and denying him information then refuses
to use the tools to force a reply. Only a ****ing hypocritical little
weasel would do such a thing.

Annan has identified the problem, has gathered evidence and has done
the math. Several mechanical engineers with decades of experience
with bicycle design have verified Annan's analysis of the primary
problem- the existence of the ejection force. The other problem
identified by Annan, that of loosening nuts, was identified and
verified long before Annan ever raised this issue. This too has been
verified by several mechanical engineers. The problem has been
presented and the next step now lies with the manufacturers and the
various regulatory bodies.

And now is his chance to find out what the US Government's own consumer
protection agency has to say on the matter and he avoids the topic. Why go
through all the trouble to compile the evidence you cite and then claim the
"performing bear" defense when pressed to substantiate some of his claims
that perhaps aren't so well supported?

Name calling doesn't change the facts, BTW. Neither does your anger
nor your emotional reasoning. Everybody that has disk brakes may
just have been hoodwinked by the companies that made them- those are
the people you should be challenging.

Don't mistake language for emotion. I don't get angry or emotional over
posts in a NG. I occasionally laugh at the sillines and enjoy the debate.
I'm also not afraid to call a weasel a weasel when I think its warrented.
You can call it "emotional reasoning" if you'd like, I call it on target.
Ah the beauty of free and unencumbered exchange of ideas. And as far as
being "hoodwinked" -- that's just the sort of conspiricy theory BS that the
FOIA request could help confirm.....or refute (oh my!). Rather than assert,
why doesn't Annan or one of his many sock puppets submit the request? Or is
that too close to reality?

Annan's the one who's heaped scorn on the CPSC. He either wants to support
his case or not, that's the whole issue. You accuse me of being a "lazy
******", but that cuts both ways. He can either engage and support his
position or continue to wallow in the intellectual masturbation that USENET
offers. He's convinced there's a dangerous product out there and implies a
conspiricy to avoid the topic on the part of manufacturers and the US Gov't.
FOIA is a tool to gather infomation to support that allegation. Why is that
a problem? Hell, I'm tempted to submit the damn request myself just to make
the point. But that would require some minimal effort, and I'm not the one
with the axe to grind.

Tom

Carl Fogel wrote:
"tcmedara" wrote in message
news:xfr9c.15168$oH2.12284@lakeread01...

[snip]

You ****ing hypocritical little weasel.

[snip]

Dear Tom,

Wasn't that how Pope Leo X invited Martin Luther
to Rome after he heard about the convenient new
Wittenberg wallpaper that could be nailed to a
church door?

Nostalgically,

Carl Fogel


Dear Carl,

As a Catholic, I'd hope the late Bishop of Rome would have used more
ecumenically appropriate language albeit with similar sentiments. I do
appreciate the analogy, however, particularly the tone religious fervor it
implies. Unfortunately, neither the Church nor it's Heretic in Chief had
resort to governmental protective agencies or empirical data collection.
God only knows how much turmoil could have been avoided had that been the
case.

Your on a Sunday,

Tom

Tom Sherman writes:

Tim McNamara wrote:

... Name calling doesn't change the facts, BTW. Neither does your
anger nor your emotional reasoning. Everybody that has disk brakes
may just have been hoodwinked by the companies that made them-
those are the people you should be challenging.

Should not the criticism be leveled at the fork manufacturers and
not the brake manufacturers?

IMHO both, since they are equal parts of the system. The brake is
designed by its maker to be mounted behind the fork leg, and the fork
is designed to put it there by its maker. Both are equal contributors
to the problem.

I don't know but do suspect that changing the dropout design might be
the easier solution, and I don't know but do suspect that changing the
location of the brake would be the better solution.

(Dave Kahn) writes:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...
(Dave Kahn) writes:

In British English "pavement" is usually used to mean "sidewalk",
hence the derogatory term "pavement cyclist".

Well, I wondered if it was something like that (I was aware of the
terminology, being a hostage of public television), but the
poster's e-mail address gives no indication of nationality.

The clue is that this thread is cross-posted to u.r.c.

Not much of a clue, that, since the thread is also cross-posted to
rec.bicycles.tech which has an international audience as a matter of
course (although seems largely American) and alt.mountain-bike which
has an audience of who-knows-what. The poster could have been from
any of the newsgroups, or even from the Web forum that interfaces
into these newsgroups.

Tim McNamara says:

and alt.mountain-bike which
has an audience of who-knows-what.

I resent that!

Steve "knows what"