Surly Long Haul Trucker

Peter Cole wrote:

I think the answer is somewhat different whether choosing a frame or a
complete bike. My point is/was that a touring frame is very
accommodating for almost every style of riding. I could see where a
full-on touring bike might be a bit of a misfit, depending on what type
of daily riding you do.

My "daily" riding would probably be a 20 mile jaunt
just for exercise

Again.... my touring might only happen a few times a
year.... at least any over night touring that is.

Peter Cole wrote:
Hands don't leave the bars. They do leave the brake, perhaps that's what
you meant. Since most shifting is done with the right hand and most
braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even in
challenging situations.

The cables can be routed under the tape if you care to.

FYI, the convention on these fora is bottom posting. I don't like it
either, but a bad convention is better than none.

Top posting makes a post with multiple embedded replies ridiculous to
read. Furthermore, top posting prevents proper interleaving of new text
directly after the relevant text one is responding to.

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

Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter Cole considered Sun, 25 Jan 2009
17:35:10 GMT the perfect time to write:

Since most shifting is done with the right hand and most
braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even in
challenging situations.

Unless you do the sensible thing and use the right brake for the
front, as on all motorcycles everywhere and all bicycles over here
(uk).
As also advocated by the great Sheldon Brown.

If I switched the brakes then I'd also switch the shifters. I have never
switched my brakes because I'd have to switch them on all my bike &
retrain my reflexes and I've never felt disadvantaged in using my
non-dominant hand for my dominant brake.

Tom Sherman wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Hands don't leave the bars. They do leave the brake, perhaps that's
what you meant. Since most shifting is done with the right hand and
most braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even
in challenging situations.

The cables can be routed under the tape if you care to.

FYI, the convention on these fora is bottom posting. I don't like it
either, but a bad convention is better than none.

Top posting makes a post with multiple embedded replies ridiculous to
read. Furthermore, top posting prevents proper interleaving of new text
directly after the relevant text one is responding to.


I understand the theory, I just don't care for the practice.

Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Sherman considered Mon, 26 Jan
2009 00:07:34 -0600 the perfect time to write:

Peter Cole wrote:
Hands don't leave the bars. They do leave the brake, perhaps that's what
you meant. Since most shifting is done with the right hand and most
braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even in
challenging situations.

The cables can be routed under the tape if you care to.

FYI, the convention on these fora is bottom posting. I don't like it
either, but a bad convention is better than none.

Top posting makes a post with multiple embedded replies ridiculous to
read. Furthermore, top posting prevents proper interleaving of new text
directly after the relevant text one is responding to.

It also means we get to play the game of reading the answer before the
question, and trying to work out which answer and which question
belong together, with the result that the newsgroup resembles a Two
Ronnies sketch.

What you and Tom describe I'd call "interleaved" posting. It's the
sensible thing to do when you are composing a point-by-point response.
When responding to a complete message I think it's more reader friendly
to top post the response. It would be the worst of both worlds (and
absurd) to interleave in reverse chronological order. Overly interleaved
posts become an impenetrable maze of indented responses, often
impossible to determine who has said what.

The point-by-point responses often come across as too pointed, often
with the feeling that the original was over-snipped and context was
lost. In top posting one can always paraphrase as part of the post,
leaving the entire message responded to underneath for those who need to
reference the whole text.

A major benefit of top posting is that it avoids the scroll, scroll,
scroll... "me too!" posts (a high percentage here).

As I said before, I always follow the convention of this NG even though
I think it's a lousy one. It's more annoying to mix the two styles. I
read a lot of forums and have been doing so since before the Internet
(Compuserve, anyone?). I much prefer the top posting convention when
it's done intelligently.

On Jan 26, 12:07*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
Hands don't leave the bars. They do leave the brake, perhaps that's what
you meant. Since most shifting is done with the right hand and most
braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even in
challenging situations.

The cables can be routed under the tape if you care to.

FYI, the convention on these fora is bottom posting. I don't like it
either, but a bad convention is better than none.

Top posting makes a post with multiple embedded replies ridiculous to
read. Furthermore, top posting prevents proper interleaving of new text
directly after the relevant text one is responding to.

People that whine about the occasional top-post, when more tragic
matters are reality in our hard world--are dooshbags.

On Jan 26, 7:38*am, landotter wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:07*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:
Hands don't leave the bars. They do leave the brake, perhaps that's what
you meant. Since most shifting is done with the right hand and most
braking with the left, it presents no problem in practice, even in
challenging situations.

The cables can be routed under the tape if you care to.

FYI, the convention on these fora is bottom posting. I don't like it
either, but a bad convention is better than none.

Top posting makes a post with multiple embedded replies ridiculous to
read. Furthermore, top posting prevents proper interleaving of new text
directly after the relevant text one is responding to.

People that whine about the occasional top-post, when more tragic
matters are reality in our hard world--are dooshbags.

+1

Somehow, I've figured out how to accommodate either style without
bursting an aneurysm.

Net-nannies, generally, are pretty much vinegar and water mixtures.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:47:32 GMT, Peter Cole
wrote:

he whole text.

A major benefit of top posting is that it avoids the scroll, scroll,
scroll... "me too!" posts (a high percentage here).

But that's the result of a different problem--people that are too lazy
to edit their quotes. If you edit the quote properly and avoid top
posting, it works great. But a lot of newer entrants to Usenet were
weened on MS Outlook so top posting feels natural to them. No biggie.