How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?

In article ,
!Jones' Sock Puppet writes:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:52:14 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam
(Tom Keats) wrote:

What's a Lamborghini Countache?

Acutally, it's properly spelled: Countach.

I copied and pasted. I haven't a clue what it is; however, based on
the context, I assume it's some kind of an expensive car. If you have
a spelling issue, then talk to whoever brought it up in the first
place spelling it thus... it wasn't me.

It was my own typing error. I was just trying to admit to
making a mistake. Now I feel like such an utter failure ;-)

Oh, well.

I wouldn't know one from a
concrete mixer and plan to keep it that way.

Those imports are too much trouble to get parts for, anyway.
It's probably easier to get parts for a cement mixer.
Heck, Jose Feliciano even sort of did a song about them
(and steam rollers.)

I sincerely hope you do derive pleasure from bike riding,
in whatever manner & clothing you prefer. At any rate, I
wish you well in all your endeavours.


cheers,
Tom

--
"If I had money, tell ya what I'd do,
I'd go downtown 'n buy a Cinelli or two,
'cuz I'm crazy 'bout a Cinelli .."

Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
!Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:22:39 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam
(Tom Keats) wrote:

I have two words: Lamborghini Countache...
I'm not real sure what you're trying to say; however, it sounds
like you're pointing out that one finds conspicuous consumption in
many other areas of our lives besides bicycles... if that is, in
fact, your point, then I will agree.
I'm just saying: a bike is a bike is a bike.
Oh. OK... I suppose I'd have to agree with that.

What's a Lamborghini Countache?

Jones

A really ugly supercar. Not to be confused with it's predecessor, the
Miura, which is sex on wheels.

nate

Speak for thyself.....not I.....please see......

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g

cheers.....Jeff

To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

n



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g


To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me, but
I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The original/prototype
is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.

Clive George wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g

To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me, but
I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The original/prototype
is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.


The original looks a lot like the old Lancia Stratos show car, which is
interesting at least. The later cars just look like someone threw a
bunch of scoops and wings at it. I think I could grow to like the
Countach shape if it didn't have the scoops behind the doors, but I
don't know that they ever actually built them like that.

I thought that the front wing was exceptionally silly... To my mind, at
least, if a car has aerodynamic lift, it's time to refine the body shape
to get rid of it, not tack a bunch of stuff on.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g

To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me,
but I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The
original/prototype is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.

The original looks a lot like the old Lancia Stratos show car, which is
interesting at least.

"show car" or "rally car"? The Stratos was actually raced successfully - won
the WRC. I quite like the way they look.

I thought that the front wing was exceptionally silly... To my mind, at
least, if a car has aerodynamic lift, it's time to refine the body shape
to get rid of it, not tack a bunch of stuff on.

That's just how things were then.

Looking further, there's a really bad-looking front bumper on the black
LP500S about halfway down (US regulations?), and I prefer the original high
up rear end to the one on the 25th anniversary model with a bumper
underneath, even thought the latter may well be better in all ways other
than looks :-)

"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g


To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me,
but I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The
original/prototype is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.

Just passing by. Used to be interested in cars. Owned XK-140 and E-Type
Jaguars. Raced once at Laguna Seca. The history of this one is unique...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini

Lamborghini is not the only one dismissed by Enzo Ferrari to see it come
back in spades. He was approached by Henry Ford II (when Ferrari was in
money trouble, which they always were) and dismissed any Ford investment.
So Ford built the GT-40s and won at LeMans, over Ferrari, 1,2,3. Ford could
probably still be winning at LeMans, but they thought they had proved the
point.

Lamborghini is now turning out the most audacious cars (The Reventon - about
a million dollars) and just to stick it to Ferrari. The old men are now
gone, but the feud continues. It's like an Italian Mafia family feud. But,
it is producing some fabulous collector cars. I was in the showroom, in
Dallas, and they were showing the only Countach, in Dallas, and I heard the
words, from a salesman to a customer, that I had heard in Europe, "It's not
just a car, it's a work of art!" And inside of me, I wanted to give the
salesman a high-five. That's it. You are not buying an Italian car, like a
Fiat, at this level. You are buying a piece of art. Buy a Fiat, you get a
car, and a bad investment. Buy a Lamborghini and you won't lose money, and
it could be in a museum. In fact Malcolm Forbes "money-green" Countach is
in a museum, in Sacramento, California, still worth enough, in ticket sales,
that they won't sell it

In article ,
"Billzz" wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g


To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me,
but I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The
original/prototype is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.

Just passing by. Used to be interested in cars. Owned XK-140 and E-Type
Jaguars. Raced once at Laguna Seca. The history of this one is unique...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini

Lamborghini is not the only one dismissed by Enzo Ferrari to see it come
back in spades. He was approached by Henry Ford II (when Ferrari was in
money trouble, which they always were) and dismissed any Ford investment.
So Ford built the GT-40s and won at LeMans, over Ferrari, 1,2,3. Ford could
probably still be winning at LeMans, but they thought they had proved the
point.

Lamborghini is now turning out the most audacious cars (The Reventon - about
a million dollars) and just to stick it to Ferrari. The old men are now
gone, but the feud continues. It's like an Italian Mafia family feud. But,
it is producing some fabulous collector cars. I was in the showroom, in
Dallas, and they were showing the only Countach, in Dallas, and I heard the
words, from a salesman to a customer, that I had heard in Europe, "It's not
just a car, it's a work of art!" And inside of me, I wanted to give the
salesman a high-five. That's it. You are not buying an Italian car, like a
Fiat, at this level. You are buying a piece of art. Buy a Fiat, you get a
car, and a bad investment. Buy a Lamborghini and you won't lose money, and
it could be in a museum. In fact Malcolm Forbes "money-green" Countach is
in a museum, in Sacramento, California, still worth enough, in ticket sales,
that they won't sell it

What a hoot.

"Founded by Ferruccio Lamborghini, Lamborghini started out
as a tractor-building company in the Italian village of
Sant'Agata Bolognese, between Bologna and Modena. However,
Ferruccio Lamborghini's priorities changed when he went
to meet Enzo Ferrari at the Ferrari factory in Maranello,
Italy, to complain about the quality of the clutch in his
Ferrari 250. Ferruccio received a dismissive answer
from Ferrari, who said to Lamborghini that "the problem
is not with the car, but rather, the driver," and suggested
he look after his tractors. A resentful Lamborghini
returned to his factory, and after dismounting the
transmission from the defective Ferrari, discovered that
it was built with the very same transmission used in his
own tractors."

--
Michael Press

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:06:13 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam
(Tom Keats) wrote:

I copied and pasted. I haven't a clue what it is; however, based on
the context, I assume it's some kind of an expensive car. If you have
a spelling issue, then talk to whoever brought it up in the first
place spelling it thus... it wasn't me.

It was my own typing error. I was just trying to admit to
making a mistake. Now I feel like such an utter failure ;-)

Oh, well.

You have no problem from me. *I* am over it.

Hey, I want one.

No! I want two of them. They'll go well with my 30K bicycle, I
think.

Jones

Billzz wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

http://www.automotivehistoryonline.c...niCountach.htm

still has the power of 'auto-erection' over me......g
To me, the page you referce is like a photomontage of evolution of a car
from merely unattractive to heinous IMHO. Diff'rent strokes, I guess...
I prefer the original too - the later ones in skirts don't do it for me,
but I know they're there to cover the huge rubber bits. The
original/prototype is at least interesting, if not actually attractive.

Just passing by. Used to be interested in cars. Owned XK-140 and E-Type
Jaguars. Raced once at Laguna Seca. The history of this one is unique...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini

Lamborghini is not the only one dismissed by Enzo Ferrari to see it come
back in spades. He was approached by Henry Ford II (when Ferrari was in
money trouble, which they always were) and dismissed any Ford investment.
So Ford built the GT-40s and won at LeMans, over Ferrari, 1,2,3. Ford could
probably still be winning at LeMans, but they thought they had proved the
point.

Lamborghini is now turning out the most audacious cars (The Reventon - about
a million dollars) and just to stick it to Ferrari. The old men are now
gone, but the feud continues. It's like an Italian Mafia family feud. But,
it is producing some fabulous collector cars. I was in the showroom, in
Dallas, and they were showing the only Countach, in Dallas, and I heard the
words, from a salesman to a customer, that I had heard in Europe, "It's not
just a car, it's a work of art!" And inside of me, I wanted to give the
salesman a high-five. That's it. You are not buying an Italian car, like a
Fiat, at this level. You are buying a piece of art. Buy a Fiat, you get a
car, and a bad investment. Buy a Lamborghini and you won't lose money, and
it could be in a museum. In fact Malcolm Forbes "money-green" Countach is
in a museum, in Sacramento, California, still worth enough, in ticket sales,
that they won't sell it



Right, it's in a museum. If you actually wanted to drive it as a daily
driver, you get a car and it's a bad investment.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
John Thompson wrote:
On 2009-01-14, Tom Sherman wrote:

PatTX wrote:
::
:: In that case teachers would have been able to buy more than two
bikes
:: a day. Most teachers only work about 200 days a year, the rest is
:: just weekends and long holidays.

You just cannot be so stupid as to believe what you just posted.
Really? When I went to US K-12, it was 180 days/year, 8:30-15:30.
When you went to school US K-12 was it as a student or as a teacher?
Teachers do not work only the hours students are in attendence. I don't
know any teachers who don't take work home with them to be completed on
their own (uncompensated) time or who do not purchase materials for their
classes from their own (uncompensated) pockets. Those long summers are
often spent in curriculum development, continuing education, and/or
teaching summer school.

Most of the teachers in my school also drove school buses or had other
outside work, so they can not have been that busy. Nothing like the 50
weeks of 50+ hours expected of most salaried employees.

Maybe Mr. Sherman missed his true calling. He would have been an excellent
high school teacher of physics. Of course, this would have meant a huge
decline in his income (he is a civil engineer), but what does that matter
when you are considering the welfare of nations. But let's face it, who
wants to put up with crappie teenagers. Teachers need a summer respite from
teenagers or else they would go crazy.

One of my cow-orker's wife is a unionized teacher who is younger than I
am and she makes more money than I do. Of course, some teachers at rural
districts in the state make about half of what I do. Of course the
unionized jobs are much harder to get, unless one knows the right people.

I would never want to teach, except at the level where students are not
made to attend. Having to pay to attend (and adulthood) does wonders for
eliminating behavioral problems in class.

College in the US is typically two 16-week semesters.
Never heard of "publish or perish" in academia?

Yes, and in those institutions, professors typically teach 2 classes a
semester, so only about 10 hours a week needs to be devoted to
instruction.

Professors are the most underworked class in American society today.
Whenever I encounter a professor, all I ever want to do is kick his dumb
ass. If the god damn dumb liberal media were not in cahoots with
academicians, they would write more articles about the scandal of higher
education in this country - where graduate students do all the hard work of
class room instruction and the g.d. professors get a free ride. I say ****
'em all!

A lot of colleges now hire "instructors" that have PhD's to non-tenure
track positions at low pay ($25-40K/year) - the wonders of having a
liberal arts degree.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll