Cannondale's tests of disks and QRs

James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote:


i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.


I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

James

how is it possible to judge??? you're the one hugging the report close
to their chest!!!!

jim beam wrote in message ...
James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote:


i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.


I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

James

how is it possible to judge??? you're the one hugging the report close
to their chest!!!!

There you go again, scaping the barrel to find fault with me and
bending over backwards to excuse Cannondale.

You do realise, don't you, that Carlton Reid (editor of
www.bikebiz.co.uk) asked Cannondale for a copy of this report about a
year ago, and was refused. Now, thanks to the FOIA and the fact that I
wrote a letter several months ago, it is readily and freely available
to all - a point which you might not have realised had I not also
posted some excerpts here immediately after receiving it. This makes
ME the one 'hugging the report close to my chest' and it is
'impossible to judge' how forthcoming Cannondale have been on the
matter? It's Cannondale's report, why haven't you asked them for a
copy rather than relying on someone who you clearly regard a priori as
untrustworthy?

Someone needs their perceptions realigning. I certainly don't
recognise your description as fitting my world.

James

On 21/9/04 3:54 am, in article , "jim
beam" wrote:

James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote:


i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.


I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

how is it possible to judge??? you're the one hugging the report close
to their chest!!!!


Come on, be fair. James has a printed document of several hundred pages. You
seem to want him to scan all these documents and do OCR etc. to save you the
bother of writing a one page letter and the cost of a stamp.

Not everything is available on-line. Deal with it and put up the cost of a
stamp or shut up already winging about how James has not spent hours
scanning every last page.

So you can do one of the following:
a) write a letter (yes, real paper, real ink and a real stamp) as James did
and get the document. Then you know can comment from a position of
knowledge.
b) accept James word for what is in the document and play 20 questions to
try to work it all out.
c) carry on whining about how James has not expended a load of effort to
save you a little.

James: would it be too much to ask for you to post the address to write to
and the details of what to ask for so that others can contribute from a
position of knowledge, rather than some medieval situation when only the
great high priest can interpret the canon of scripture?

...d

in message , jim beam
') wrote:

James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote:

i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be
much more forthcoming.

I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

how is it possible to judge??? you're the one hugging the report
close to their chest!!!!

Frankly to the uninvolved observer it seems to me that both sides in
this debate are getting into entrenched and childish positions. James
has got off his butt and obtained (as I understand it, on paper) a copy
of the report. Presumably from Cannondale. If you want to read it, why
don't you phone them or write to them, and ask for your own copy?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

in message , Tim McNamara
') wrote:

James Annan writes:

jim beam wrote:

stop being so childish. get on with the data and drop the vitriol.

I'll write up my own analysis when I have the time, and put it on my
web-site. I'll also ask Cannondale if they have any defence of their
experiment.

I think most of us would just settle for a verbatim of the Cannondale
research.

You know where to get it, then. Write to Cannondale.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of achiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

In article , Tony Raven wrote:

James, you whole approach and language says you are on a crusade for
your theory and to cast out those who are not true believers. You are a
scientist. Start behaving like one and stop behaving like a religious
zealot.

From here it looks like he's fed up with people nitpicking and/or repeating
arguments that have already been gone over many times before, and he's fed
up with going over his theory again and again for people who assume it
can't possibly be right without looking at it properly.
Some of which may rub off even on people who aren't doing that.

David Martin wrote:


James: would it be too much to ask for you to post the address to write to
and the details of what to ask for so that others can contribute from a
position of knowledge

Certainly. You just need to write to David Campbell at Cannondale, 16
Trowbridge Drive, Bethel. He will be delighted to offer a copy of report
WH00139...just like he did to Carlton Reid last year :-) Yeah, right.

Alternatively, it might be more profitable to try the FOIA office which
Tony Raven provided a pointer to some time ago. The address for the CPSC
can be found on the linked page, along with instructions and a standard
letter:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tony+raven+foia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=c44nl2%242cpovq%241%40ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=1

I thought I had posted this already, but now I see it was on a
non-crossposted subthread. If you quote the reference number PI030099 it
should help them locate the material efficiently.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

james, i'm done with you. if you can find the word "cannondale" in my
comment, let alone any form of excuse, you have severe emotional
problems that need professional help.

James Annan wrote:
jim beam wrote in message ...

James Annan wrote:

jim beam wrote:



i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.


I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

James

how is it possible to judge??? you're the one hugging the report close
to their chest!!!!


There you go again, scaping the barrel to find fault with me and
bending over backwards to excuse Cannondale.

You do realise, don't you, that Carlton Reid (editor of
www.bikebiz.co.uk) asked Cannondale for a copy of this report about a
year ago, and was refused. Now, thanks to the FOIA and the fact that I
wrote a letter several months ago, it is readily and freely available
to all - a point which you might not have realised had I not also
posted some excerpts here immediately after receiving it. This makes
ME the one 'hugging the report close to my chest' and it is
'impossible to judge' how forthcoming Cannondale have been on the
matter? It's Cannondale's report, why haven't you asked them for a
copy rather than relying on someone who you clearly regard a priori as
untrustworthy?

Someone needs their perceptions realigning. I certainly don't
recognise your description as fitting my world.

James

jim beam wrote:
james, i'm done with you. if you can find the word "cannondale" in my
comment, let alone any form of excuse, you have severe emotional
problems that need professional help.

You're missing the point, perhaps you need grammatical help?

You said he was holding the report close to his chest. He pointed out
it's Cannondale's report, not his, and they're the ones who aren't in a
big hurry to release it to, for example, bikebiz.
So in blaming someone who isn't responsible for the report for its
availability, you are effectively excusing those who /are/ responsible
for it.

I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other and haven't seen
the report, just commenting on the semantics of the bitchiness...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

jim beam wrote:

james, i'm done with you.

I'm glad to hear it. Does that mean you will get on with discussing the
Cannondale tests now?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/