{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 6:20:47 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:54:23 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.

Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.


Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

The theory, like most of the liberal "schemes" seems to be geared
toward appeasing the masses, or perhaps educating the masses to a
"problem" which is then cured by those in power.

Witness the breakup of Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon,
I believe, and as 2018 (latest numbers I can find) the largest oil
company in the U.S.


When John D Rockefeller started in the oil business,
kerosene was $1 per gallon, By 1890 the going rate was ten
cents. Where's the harm to oil lamp consumers?

As an aside, it was Rockefeller who 'saved the whales'.
Cheap kerosene snuffed the whale oil industry which had
formerly lit America's lamps.

I'm open to anyone who wants to attempt a defense of
anti-trust. Bring it on.
Well (raising hand), antitrust includes a lot of anti-competitive behavior and not just monopoly. I don't think you're defending kickbacks, or tying or combinations/cartels or other anti-competitive behavior -- just the wisdom of breaking up companies that are "too big."

I think we should vote on what is too big. Put it on the ballot. Yes/No: "Is Google too big." "Would you prefer lots of little Googles?"

What do you do about the Google practice of hiding information embarrassing to their pals in the Democrat Party? What do you do about extremely negative data that proves that covid-19 is not dangerous and that these "spikes" are nothing more than asymptomatic cases that are being caught by massive testing? Just TRY and find the actual scientific studies that show that masks have no effect on viral illnesses EVEN though it is written on the side of the box that masks come in.

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 8:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

Yes, that's the nub of it exactly. Envy ought not to be a
criminal predicate.

Bribery, structuring, fraud, conspiracy etc are already
crimes. Being successful ought not be added to the list.

I am not a customer of Gurlge, Amazon, The Face Book,
Twitter or any their ilk. If you don't like the way they run
their businesses, you already have recourse - don't use them.

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming. Make your own
choice as you see fit, but Federal prosecution is not the
answer.

We surely do not want a nation in which some government
dweeb in an office passes both judgement and sentence on
one's thoughts.

There is a major problem that most of the younger generation have grown up using these platforms and being grievously misinformed. While you and I might have doubts about matters published every day on Yahoo, this younger generation take it all at face value. Do we allow our country to be run by Joseph Goebbels or his twin?

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:40:22 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:42:28 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/22/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:48:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

For example, I note that the government is going to sue Walmart about
opioids as, I read, "Opioid addiction claimed roughly 400,000 lives in
the US from 1999 to 2017" (or an average of some 23,000 annually). Oh!
My! God! what a tragedy!

And on the other hand I read that, in the U.S., some 228,367 have died
of the virus since the 15th of February, or, if one extend the numbers
to a full year, perhaps 332 thousand a year, and I'm assured that this
is "nothing to worry about".


In re Walmart (a firm I dislike and do not patronize):

Each and every prescription was written by an MD, purchases and sales
are meticulously recorded and reported to the FDA,
and every opiate was delivered to the prescription holder with a valid
ID. Criminalizing regular business in a highly regulated environment is
shameful even against scum like Walmart. The prosecution is so vile I am
forced to defend those jerks. oy!
It diverts from the fact that the opoid epidemic cam about by GovCo
deliberately ignoring the early statements of warning by the medical
profession.. Pick your boogie man and go after them. The masses will
watch n the idiot box.
I suggest you learn something before writing your crap. There are almost NO effective severe pain killers. That is why it has been around for thousands of yeas after it was discovered and refined into morphine. It is difficult to over prescribe it with all of the regulations against its sale.

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:53:14 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:54:33 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss)..

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors.. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Eh? You don't see that monopoly -- or its practically more familiar sister, oligopoly -- is an abuse against the public weal? Would it help if I told you that oligopoly is an extreme case of Adam Smith's nightmare of businessmen conspiring against consumers? and that economists with government chops can cite long lists of cases in which government-fostered oligopolies inevitably became a burden on taxpayers; the most notorious case in the States is the mortgage of private homes being guaranteed by the government.

I am aware that "trust-busting" has been selectively applied since Teddy Roosevelt's time. But I was sorry that when Washington had Bill Gates dead to rights, they let him off with a finger-wagging -- and permitted him to keep Microsoft together, which was too large an error to be merely incompetent and must therefore be evil.

My great surprise is that any competition to Windows hasn't arisen. Can you think of anyone that actually likes windows?

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 7:57:56 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors.. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute
What does this have to do with Google? The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment. All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior. The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

When section 230 was written it NEVER occurred to anyone that what has become these tech giants would use their power to censor information. This was not even considered in the day of Outlook.

On 10/23/2020 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 9:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming.

So you switched to the New York Post?

"Secret tape shows Joe Biden's cousin playing Russian
Roulette with two headed space alien!" with a sidebar
article "All the Kardashians forget to wear pants on the
same day!"

Journalism at its finest! ;-)


Those are not Post headlines. Babylon Bee more likely.

I read Wall Street Journal and occasionally Chicago Trib on
paper (Trib is no longer available outside Illinois for
subscription or news stand)

I read about a dozen US and European news web sites every
morning, first page only, to get a sense of what's being
reported and then read a smattering of articles in depth.

Regarding your attempt at satire, the information on the
laptop only corroborated and detailed previously reported
bribery and influence peddling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ibbq_LG-4

Those arrangements were yesterday confirmed by a former
partner in the scam, an ex-Navy man:

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-comm...artner-1541390

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/23/2020 11:24 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 8:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

Yes, that's the nub of it exactly. Envy ought not to be a
criminal predicate.

Bribery, structuring, fraud, conspiracy etc are already
crimes. Being successful ought not be added to the list.

I am not a customer of Gurlge, Amazon, The Face Book,
Twitter or any their ilk. If you don't like the way they run
their businesses, you already have recourse - don't use them.

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming. Make your own
choice as you see fit, but Federal prosecution is not the
answer.

We surely do not want a nation in which some government
dweeb in an office passes both judgement and sentence on
one's thoughts.

There is a major problem that most of the younger generation have grown up using these platforms and being grievously misinformed. While you and I might have doubts about matters published every day on Yahoo, this younger generation take it all at face value. Do we allow our country to be run by Joseph Goebbels or his twin?


It's temporary and voluntary at any rate.

Do you shop at Walmart? I don't.
Did you feel the same way about MySpace? They're almost
nonexistent now.

Business wax and wane. Power given to government always
comes back to bite us in the ass followed by a larger power
grab. That cure is always worse than any disease.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/23/2020 1:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/23/2020 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 9:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming.

So you switched to the New York Post?

"Secret tape shows Joe Biden's cousin playing Russian
Roulette with two headed space alien!" with a sidebar
article "All the Kardashians forget to wear pants on the
same day!"

Journalism at its finest!Â*Â* ;-)


Those are not Post headlines. Babylon Bee more likely.

I read Wall Street Journal and occasionally Chicago Trib on paper (Trib
is no longer available outside Illinois for subscription or news stand)

I read about a dozen US and European news web sites every morning, first
page only, to get a sense of what's being reported and then read a
smattering of articles in depth.

Regarding your attempt at satire, the information on the laptop only
corroborated and detailed previously reported bribery and influence
peddling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ibbq_LG-4

Those arrangements were yesterday confirmed by a former partner in the
scam, an ex-Navy man:

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-comm...artner-1541390

Oh, it's so simple! Open and shut case! Unless... wait...

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukra.../30181445.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or/3785620002/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9147001.html

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/14/su...al-media-bans/

.... unless you don't spend all day on right-wing news outlets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 10:56:38 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2020 1:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/23/2020 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 9:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming.

So you switched to the New York Post?

"Secret tape shows Joe Biden's cousin playing Russian
Roulette with two headed space alien!" with a sidebar
article "All the Kardashians forget to wear pants on the
same day!"

Journalism at its finest! ;-)


Those are not Post headlines. Babylon Bee more likely.

I read Wall Street Journal and occasionally Chicago Trib on paper (Trib
is no longer available outside Illinois for subscription or news stand)

I read about a dozen US and European news web sites every morning, first
page only, to get a sense of what's being reported and then read a
smattering of articles in depth.

Regarding your attempt at satire, the information on the laptop only
corroborated and detailed previously reported bribery and influence
peddling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ibbq_LG-4

Those arrangements were yesterday confirmed by a former partner in the
scam, an ex-Navy man:

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-comm...artner-1541390
Oh, it's so simple! Open and shut case! Unless... wait...

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukra.../30181445.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or/3785620002/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9147001.html

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/14/su...al-media-bans/

... unless you don't spend all day on right-wing news outlets.

--
- Frank Krygowski
You may believe anything you like but the money that flowed into the Biden family purely from Joe's governmental position is pretty easy to trace and the man who turned in the Hunter hard drive with enough evidence to have a Grand Jury empaneled is an unimpeachable source.

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 8:49:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 8:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
https://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Specialized/inside-specialized_about-us?$hybris-nav$ I stopped by the warehouse for a ride with Hans Heim (now CEO of Ibis), Charlie Mack, both down front -- and Mike S. and some others. They did a regular ride around the reservoirs in Almaden Valley.

??? Bikes with racks?? And bags?? And cantilever brakes??

Yes, that picture was taken in '81 (or a little earlier) at about the same time Specialized introduced the Allez and Sequoia -- and the Stumpjumper. Mike S. may be holding onto one of the first Stumpjumpers, which came with cantilevers. https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...oia-allez.html I was told that the Sequoia reviewed by Bicycling was hand-built by Tim Neenan and not from the first production out of Japan. Charlie Mack (down front in the picture) built the wheels and not Wheelsmith. He was pleased with the shout-out for building the truest wheels John Schubert had seen out of bike box. I met Charlie earlier in the '70s, and he already had a full Campy tool kit, which was a huge investment back then.

BTW, speaking of racks, one of my SJSU cohorts, Jim Blackburn was really taking off -- as you can see from two of those bikes, although he had been around for a whopping five years before that picture. http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalog...to-76/p36.html The exact rack and panniers I bought in '76 from PAB. I still have the Kirtland bags, and they smell like dead rats.

Anyway, a year later, all those guys would probably be photographed with Specialized bikes. And now the whole herd would be photographed with plastic bikes with discs. Technology has moved on. My son's beater commuter is an ebike like the one my wife rides.

Also, there are people touching bicycles but not wearing foam plastic hats.

You're lucky to have survived.

Why argue about helmets? Even during that period, a lot of people wore helmets, but they may have been deceived by Big Helmet/Big Hairnet. https://bikeportland.org/2011/02/03/...e-racing-47270

-- Jay Beattie.