And the Tour is off to an interesting start

On Jul 3, 10:36*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:11*pm, "Mark J." wrote:



On 7/3/2011 4:48 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

On Jul 3, 1:17 pm, *wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:34 pm, Simply *wrote:

thirty-six wrote:
Bull****, the rider was completely outside the line marking the edge
of the carriageway, he'd have come down with a broken edging. *By law
he should have been inside that line, he is totally at fault.

Is this a new UCI law ? They didn't seem to be enforcing it at
Paris-Roubaix.

Spectators weren't hit by riders at Paris-Roubaix.

Surely, at some point, a spectator has been hit by a
rider at Paris Roubaix, and if not, there's cyclocross:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=salfFYuinwY

Relevant moment is 1 minute in, thus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=salfFYuinwY#t=0m55s

Your point that the spectator was not in the road would
be relevant if riders and spectators were idealized
points with zero dimensionality, thus it is legitimate
in a mathematical model of the Tour de France.

When reality fails to correspond to the model, clearly
the reality must be revised.

Treavor / thirty-six has a lot of experience revising reality on r.b.tech.

Mark J.

In this case, I imagine that Trevor's experience is
with British time trials officiated by some anorak
who really does disqualify riders for riding on the
road side of the fog line, or the shoulder side of the
fog line, or God forbid, riding on the line itself.

Ah ********, I made enpough starts, and a fwe finishes to know not to
ride into the viewers. If you are going to hit a bystander, hit the
bugger full on, or punch the side they are on, elsewise they twist the
bars and bring you down.

On the Continent they're a bunch of barbarians that
have no respect for the rule of law. *They even tolerate
mass start racing and eat vegetables without boiling
them to death first.

Water in the pot is poison. Why else do you think the French dilute it
with wine at the table?

In article
,
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:09Â*am, Phil H wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:00Â*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:11Â*pm, Phil H wrote:


That may be so but I fail to see any distinction between colored or
black.
Phil H

Well, probably nobody has ever called you one as an insult.
If they had you might hear the distinction.

I remember being surprised to hear someone (a school
bus driver) call a kid "colored" in the mid-70s, because it
was not normal by then, and nobody would have said that
in the school itself, for example. Â*Phil should have had this
**** figured out by now.

Imagine the ****storm if a football or baseball announcer
used the word "colored." Â*Being a senile Brit is not an excuse.

Nice, you should practice what you preach. In Britain, the reference
to "colored" wasn't used as a derogatory term. There were plenty of
others that were, but colored wasn't one of them. Refering to someone
as black wasn't really acceptable there either. This must be something
to do with the US's different path of evolving PC with regard to races
that were once considered by the US to be sub-species. It's nice to
see that we in the US have finally got our **** together.
Phil H

Dumbass,

You said you fail to see the difference between
"colored" and "black."

In the US there's a distinction. Phil is an announcer
on a show that is broadcast in the US. You live in the
US. Learn the ****ing distinction.

If you object to my calling a public figure a senile Brit,
that's fine. "Brit" is certainly mildly offensive. Not as
****ing offensive as the phrase "colored." If you can't
understand the difference I don't think I'm going to be
able to explain it to you.

This isn't about political correctness. This is about
real distinctions between words that have bad associations
based on long ugly histories. For starters, in the US,
segregated facilities were labeled "white" and "colored,"
not "white" and "black."

This discussion proves that you cannot pick up a turd
by the clean end.

--
Old Fritz

thirty-six wrote:
Red herring. Makes no difference to a closed road. The riders are
still required to stay within the bounds of the road when they are
riding.

I assume your pseudonym is derived from your IQ.

On Jul 4, 1:34*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jul 4, 2:09*am, Phil H wrote:



On Jul 3, 4:00*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jul 3, 11:11*pm, Phil H wrote:

That may be so but I fail to see any distinction between colored or
black.
Phil H

Well, probably nobody has ever called you one as an insult.
If they had you might hear the distinction.

I remember being surprised to hear someone (a school
bus driver) call a kid "colored" in the mid-70s, because it
was not normal by then, and nobody would have said that
in the school itself, for example. *Phil should have had this
**** figured out by now.

Imagine the ****storm if a football or baseball announcer
used the word "colored." *Being a senile Brit is not an excuse.

Fredmaster Ben

Nice, you should practice what you preach. In Britain, the reference
to "colored" wasn't used as a derogatory term. There were plenty of
others that were, but colored wasn't one of them. Refering to someone
as black wasn't really acceptable there either. This must be something
to do with the US's different path of evolving PC with regard to races
that were once considered by the US to be sub-species. It's nice to
see that we in the US have finally got our **** together.
Phil H

Dumbass,

You said you fail to see the difference between
"colored" and "black."


Black?

http://youtu.be/FuwVxt_-ODg

or crow?



In the US there's a distinction. *Phil is an announcer
on a show that is broadcast in the US. *You live in the
US. *Learn the ****ing distinction.

If you object to my calling a public figure a senile Brit,
that's fine. *"Brit" is certainly mildly offensive. *Not as
****ing offensive as the phrase "colored." *If you can't
understand the difference I don't think I'm going to be
able to explain it to you.

This isn't about political correctness. *This is about
real distinctions between words that have bad associations
based on long ugly histories. *For starters, in the US,
segregated facilities were labeled "white" and "colored,"
not "white" and "black."

Fredmaster Ben

On Jul 4, 7:44*am, Simply Fred wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
* Red herring. *Makes no difference to a closed road. *The riders are
still required to stay within the bounds of the road when they are
riding.

I assume your pseudonym is derived from your IQ.

That is to fool the simple.

On Jul 3, 1:14*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:37*am, atriage wrote:

You can only mean French traffic laws...so riders who pass on the *wrong* side
of a traffic island are breaking the law huh?..you complete and utter ****wit.

*Red herring. *Makes no difference to a closed road. *The riders are
still required to stay within the bounds of the road when they are
riding.

So Armstrong cheated when he circumvented the race course ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY

Not to mention obstructing the other riders with his cocksucking bike
placement into the middle of the road.

On Jul 3, 12:14*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:37*am, atriage wrote:

You can only mean French traffic laws...so riders who pass on the *wrong* side
of a traffic island are breaking the law huh?..you complete and utter ****wit.

*Red herring. *Makes no difference to a closed road. *The riders are
still required to stay within the bounds of the road when they are
riding.

No, they're not.

Hell, I once saw coverage of a race where a guy cut across a big
field, screaming down a hill, dismounting to jump a ditch, then
rejoining the race as it caught up to him. Aside from remarking about
his incredible bike handling skills and his luck at not puncturing a
tire, not much was said about it and he surely wasn't penalized for
it. Maybe you saw that coverage, too?

Oh, wait... I just figured it out. You're talking about RIDING,
everyone else is talking about racing.

On Jul 5, 2:48*am, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:14*pm, thirty-six wrote:

On Jul 3, 8:37*am, atriage wrote:

You can only mean French traffic laws...so riders who pass on the *wrong* side
of a traffic island are breaking the law huh?..you complete and utter ****wit.

*Red herring. *Makes no difference to a closed road. *The riders are
still required to stay within the bounds of the road when they are
riding.

So Armstrong cheated

I see you're catching on.

when he circumvented the race course ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY

Not to mention obstructing the other riders with his cocksucking bike
placement into the middle of the road.

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
In this case, I imagine that Trevor's experience is
with British time trials officiated by some anorak
who really does disqualify riders for riding on the
road side of the fog line, or the shoulder side of the
fog line, or God forbid, riding on the line itself.

On the Continent they're a bunch of barbarians that
have no respect for the rule of law. They even tolerate
mass start racing and eat vegetables without boiling
them to death first.

And they don't warm their beer before drinking it either. Even the
colonials plebs in Canada and Australia aren't that barbaric.