A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles



Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tanya Quinn

Guest
> I've been cycling pretty consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very
> early age, but now I've noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my
> left, ie. it has more muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the
> engineers would put a little imagination into it.

Strange I have the opposite problem, from consistent cycling I have more muscle development in my
left leg than my right leg. So perhaps it really just ends up being more which leg you favor/push
harder with than which side the mechanisms are located on?

> The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

Hmm I don't think getting leg muscles is the whole point of cycling. There's overall health/cardio,
an efficient/enviro friendly/inexpensive means of transportation, simple enjoyment of the wind at
your back, enjoying scenery at a nice pace, etc......
 
M

Mgs

Guest
Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for the Usenet community in 1983.
I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when Reagan was President. Indeed ,
I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.

Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the next thousand years.

>
> ROTFL! Top posting is not considered acceptable to the majority of the Usenet community. Never has
> been. This is a convention that has been around for more than 20 years, by the way. You betray
> your lack of experience and ignorance of history with your comments.
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"MGS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for the Usenet community in 1983.
>I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when Reagan was President. Indeed
>, I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.

It can't be. Al Gore hadn't invented the internet by 1984 IIRC...

>Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the next thousand years.

Only if you don't mind not being as clear as you might otherwise be. Z'up to you.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

>> ROTFL! Top posting is not considered acceptable to the majority of the Usenet community. Never
>> has been. This is a convention that has been around for more than 20 years, by the way. You
>> betray your lack of experience and ignorance of history with your comments.
>
 
W

Walter Mitty

Guest
David Damerell <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:-fD*[email protected] he conjectured that:

> Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Top posting is, IMO superior in all aspects for a well connected thread. Reason? I don't have to
>>scroll down through heaps of repeat material to get to the pertinent point. When I hilite a post I
>>see the new material there at the top.
>
> This is why you should quote correctly.

Sorry? Are you out of context or have I lost the thread despite the bottom posting :) ?

Look : I use a newsreader which constructs the thread using a tree view. It's easy. Not every post
needs all the trivia before.

--
Walter Mitty.
 
W

Walter Mitty

Guest
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Top Sirloin <[email protected]> brightened my day
with
>>>>I stopped fighting top posters a lot time ago - it take a lot less time to killfile them.
>>>Killfile rude, obnoxious people, but surely not those with a simple postinmg preference?
>>
>>If someone's articles are hard to read, they must be of a much higher standard to be worth the
>>time to read them - and generally speaking, top-posters do not post articles of a high standard,
>>so this is not a factor.
>
> It's probably the same with most of us. I don't spend a great amount of time deciding if a post is
> worth reading or not when scanning through them. If one is top-posted, and it's not immediately
> obvious what it's replying to (and the context), I'll just skip over it without more than a
> cursory glance.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>

Which, IMO, is a shame. If you skip between many newsgroups (especially those with less "IT" know
how), you will find many top posters with interesting and pertinent points to make.

As I said in a previous post, top posting doesn't make the contribution any less worthy.

--
Walter Mitty.
 
W

Walter Mitty

Guest
"Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

> Speaking of etiquette, shouldn't this discussion on top-posting have it's own subject line, like
> "OT: No Top-posting"?
>
> --
> Robin Hubert <[email protected]>
>

Ask Tim. He seems to know how threads should be constructed. Indeed, he wrote the rules.

--
Walter Mitty.
 
D

Doug Taylor

Guest
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> ROTFL! Top posting is not considered acceptable to the majority of the Usenet community. Never has
> been. This is a convention that has been around for more than 20 years, by the way. You betray
> your lack of experience and ignorance of history with your comments.
>
> > And besides, I like top posting.
>
> I suppose you do. It eliminates any need to form a coherent statement nor a relationship between
> your comments and those that preceded you. Trying to read a thread full of top posters is like
> trying to read a book backwards. It can be done, but it's unnecessarily tedious.
>
> > I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.
>
> Which is where your comments should be.

Here's mine at the bottom: Yet again, McNamara, you reveal yourself to be one of the most
insufferably pompous, self-important, and sanctimonius bores who has ever posted on usenet. Nobody
can touch you.

All of the imperiousness of Jobst, little of the relevance, none of the content.

A true usenet gem: too precious to killfile; too cheap to take seriously. Always good for a smirk.
 
W

Walter Mitty

Guest
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

> In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't do us any favors next time. Thanks for turning what could have been an interesting
>> discussion regarding different bike design into a crappy discussion about where to type.
>
> The original post was a troll. Perhaps you're not familiar with that just as you are not familiar
> with posting conventions and netiquette?
>
> Ah, I suppose I should just follow Mark Twain's advice: never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your
> time and annoys the pig.
>

But thanks for the input anyway. The OP might not know anymore about bike design (troll or not), but
thanks to you he knows where to type his troll.

Thanks for playing.

--
Walter Mitty.
 
B

Benjamin Weiner

Guest
MGS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for the Usenet community in
> 1983. I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when Reagan was President.
> Indeed , I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

1979 - USENET established using UUCP between Duke and UNC by Tom Truscott, Jim Ellis, and Steve
Bellovin. All original groups were under net.* hierarchy.

1984 - Moderated newsgroups introduced on USENET (mod.*)

> Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the next thousand years.

People spit on the sidewalk, too.

-Ben "What we need now are killfiles that really kill." -- Michele Tepper
 
B

Buck

Guest
"Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> Look : I use a newsreader which constructs the thread using a tree view. It's easy. Not every post
> needs all the trivia before.
>

But the trivia can be extremely helpful, especially when your newsreader is set to drop posts after
a couple of days and you just went out of town for three. Instead of wading through the old posts,
it is easier to catch the context of the discussion from the most current posts - provided they have
bothered to properly quote and reply.

-Buck
 
M

Mgs

Guest
Oh my goodness, I've been fired from the internet for top posting.

Sigh....I've tried so hard to abide by all the rules dictated to me by others.

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> MGS <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gee, I was unaware that you were involved in setting the standard for
the
> > Usenet community in 1983. I must admit that I was unaware of the internet Usenet community when
> > Reagan was
President.
> > Indeed , I was under the impression that the moderated Usenet was established in 1984.
>
> http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
>
> 1979 - USENET established using UUCP between Duke and UNC by Tom Truscott, Jim Ellis, and Steve
> Bellovin. All original groups were under net.*
hierarchy.
>
> 1984 - Moderated newsgroups introduced on USENET (mod.*)
>
>
> > Well, welcome to the new millennia. Top posting is acceptable for the
next
> > thousand years.
>
> People spit on the sidewalk, too.
>
>
> -Ben "What we need now are killfiles that really kill." -- Michele Tepper
In article <[email protected]>, "MGS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I find top posting superior to bottom posting. That way if I've followed a thread I don't have to
> scroll through the drivel that has already been posted.

That's why you <snip> out the irrelevant drivel, as I did with this post. I realize this actually
takes a few seconds of intelligent consideration, and many newsgroup participants want to minimize
actual cerebration as much as possible.

> And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top posting is absurd and
> nothing more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of posting that is
> neither accepted by all, nor required.

ROTFL! Top posting is not considered acceptable to the majority of the Usenet community. Never has
been. This is a convention that has been around for more than 20 years, by the way. You betray your
lack of experience and ignorance of history with your comments.

> And besides, I like top posting.

I suppose you do. It eliminates any need to form a coherent statement nor a relationship between
your comments and those that preceded you. Trying to read a thread full of top posters is like
trying to read a book backwards. It can be done, but it's unnecessarily tedious.

> I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.

Which is where your comments should be. On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 00:36:21 GMT, "MGS"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I find top posting superior to bottom posting. That way if I've followed a thread I don't have to
>scroll through the drivel that has already been posted.
>
>That includes scrolling through the top posting argument that has already been posted.
>
>And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top posting is absurd and
>nothing more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of posting that is
>neither accepted by all, nor required.
>
>And besides, I like top posting.
>
>I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.

rock on.....

people, hey get so snotty about *top-posting*.....oh my, aren't they so damn
important....lol.....ownership!!

(no Euro top-posting please.....oh my, it makes us sooooo angry)

bob

>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McNamara" <t[email protected]> Newsgroups:
>rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: Re: A fundamental
>flaw with bikes/cycles
>
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
>wit
>> > when in news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>> >
>> > What's top posting?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Please don't top post.
>> > >
>> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
>> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
>> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
>> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
>> > >
>>
>> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>>
>> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
>> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
>> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
>> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
>> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>>
>> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
>> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
>> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>>
>> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
>> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
>> simple ettiquette of Usenet.
>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
>wit
>> > when in news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>> >
>> > What's top posting?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Please don't top post.
>> > >
>> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
>> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
>> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
>> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
>> > >
>>
>> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>>
>> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
>> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
>> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
>> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
>> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>>
>> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
>> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
>> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>>
>> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
>> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
>> simple ettiquette of Usenet.
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Here's mine at the bottom: Yet again, McNamara, you reveal yourself to be one of the most
> insufferably pompous, self-important, and sanctimonius bores who has ever posted on usenet. Nobody
> can touch you.
>
> All of the imperiousness of Jobst, little of the relevance, none of the content.
>
> A true usenet gem: too precious to killfile; too cheap to take seriously. Always good for a smirk.

Feel free to smirk or to killfile me. It makes little difference from my side of the keyboard and
fortunately my self-esteem is not founded upon your positive regard.

But do recall how this silliness started: I simply asked- politely- that a poster not top post.
Nothing more. The dudgeon belongs to others.
 
A

Alan

Guest
Damn! Here I was thinking that what someone had to say was the important part, not where
they put it!

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

"Mark Hickey" <ma[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Only if you don't mind not being as clear as you might otherwise be. Z'up to you.
 
T

Top Sirloin

Guest
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:33:21 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you killfile people with .sigs which are too long? Or don't fill in the subject properly?

Yes.

>Killfile rude, obnoxious people, but surely not those with a simple postinmg preference?

If they're not taking the time to properly format their post, they usually aren't taking the time to
formulate anything worth reading.

There are always exceptions though. :)

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
> news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't do us any favors next time. Thanks for turning what could have been an interesting
> >> discussion regarding different bike design into a crappy discussion about where to type.
> >
> > The original post was a troll. Perhaps you're not familiar with that just as you are not
> > familiar with posting conventions and netiquette?
> >
> > Ah, I suppose I should just follow Mark Twain's advice: never teach a pig to sing. It wastes
> > your time and annoys the pig.
>
> But thanks for the input anyway. The OP might not know anymore about bike design (troll or not),
> but thanks to you he knows where to type his troll.
>
> Thanks for playing.

And just which troll have I been playing with, Walter? ;-)
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, "alan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Damn! Here I was thinking that what someone had to say was the important part, not where
> they put it!

What they have to say is important, but how they say it is also important. If posters develop these
simple skills, that helps the rest of the world understand your point(s) in context. The conventions
for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically" for a very good
set of reasons.
 
T

Top Sirloin

Guest
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:31:46 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

>For short, incisive replies to long winded questions I see nothing wrong with top posting. It's
>quick and easy to spot the reply in a convential "start at top of post" news reader.

Except that it's a reply not framed by the context of the original post, so you're missing 1/2 of
what's being said, and it also prevents you from coherently replying to more than one idea per post.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo
 
T

Top Sirloin

Guest
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:48:22 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p
. c o m> wrote:

>But the trivia can be extremely helpful, especially when your newsreader is set to drop posts after
>a couple of days and you just went out of town for three. Instead of wading through the old posts,
>it is easier to catch the context of the discussion from the most current posts - provided they
>have bothered to properly quote and reply.

Word.

--

Scott Johnson "be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth" -John Carlo
 
J

Joshua Putnam

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Top Sirloin <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
> news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>
> >
> > I stopped fighting top posters a lot time ago - it take a lot less time to killfile them.
> >
>
> Do you killfile people with .sigs which are too long? Or don't fill in the subject properly?
>
> Killfile rude, obnoxious people, but surely not those with a simple postinmg preference?

I have occasionally killfiled people with rude, obnoxious posting preferences that either make
their posts unreadable or strip them of all context, e.g. people who top-post with reams of quoted
material below, and no indication what particularly they're responding to. Top posting in response
to an original post is lazy but readable; top-posting over many iterations of quoting is just
plain rude.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Books for Bicycle Mechanics and
Tinkerers: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Now, you see of course that I've had to repair your top posting in order to make the thread
> > readable and comprehensible.
>

"chris freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Don't do us any favors next time. Thanks for turning what could have been an interesting
> discussion regarding different bike design into a crappy discussion about where to type.

S o paste it together sensibly and we'll read it

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
 
Status
Not open for further replies.