A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles

[Jym Dyer]

> 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.

=v= Don't worry, I'm sure Sheldon Brown will come up with a solution to this problem. <_Jym_>

Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q ::: [email protected] ::::::::::::::::: "My
other car is :: ==`\(s_ :: http://www.things.org/~jym/ :::: also a bicycle." :: (_)/ (_) ::

Without advertising in this country, my goodness, we'd still be in this country what Russia
mostly still is: a nation of bearded bicyclists with B.O. -- Paul Harvey

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Mgs]

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.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McNamara" <[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.

 

[Chris Freeman]

Give me a break! I cut out the useless **** that I wasn't responding to. Doesn't take any more time
to read either way if all you leave in the original quote is what is being responded to.

chris

Tim McNamara wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Where? Got any pics of such a machine?
> >
> > chris
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with a
> > > linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.
>
> 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.

 

[A Muzi]

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with a
> > linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.

"chris freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Where? Got any pics of such a machine?

Look for Alenax. "more efficient" ???? Maybe that's why they were so successful.
--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

[A Muzi]

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
wit
> when in news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
> > Please don't top post.
-snip content-

"Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> What's top posting?

. reader the for converstaion the of order the up screws which , top the at comments your
adding It's

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Where? Got any pics of such a machine?
> > >
> > > chris
> > >
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with
> > > > a linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Give me a break! I cut out the useless **** that I wasn't responding to. Doesn't take any more
> time to read either way if all you leave in the original quote is what is being responded to.

Now, you see of course that I've had to repair your top posting in order to make the thread readable
and comprehensible. And of course it's still screwed up because of Walter Mitty's top post. But this
is far superior and much more logical than continuing to post replies on top of your post, on top of
the previous post, on top of the previous post, ad nauseum.

See, top posting betrays laziness and a lack of respect for the people you're conversing with.
Proper posting is like any other form of manners, it serves to lubricate social interaction so that
attention can be given to content rather than form.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Erik Freitag]

In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Give me a break! I cut out the useless **** that I wasn't responding to. Doesn't take any more
> time to read either way if all you leave in the original quote is what is being responded to.

Or as a contributor to uk.media.tv.misc once said:

> Why do folks get their drawers in a fankle about top-posting anyway? I do it all the time, I don't
> get all this netiquette bollocks at all, who gives a ****

I feel that this thoughtful reply was instructive:

> After right who "rules" so-called time wish. not? they right. is actually about whether to the
> given Quite gives Anyone these outmoded the post resulting post has readable exactly how were
> tinker's It's a all, push. the or

 

[Walter Mitty]

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

>> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his
incisive
> wit
>> when in news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
>> > Please don't top post.
> -snip content-
>
> "Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> What's top posting?
>
> . reader the for
*snip*

Sorry Andrew, I was being argumentative as, personally, I hate self appointed net police that jump
in with little relevant information but a barrage of net usage policies.

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.

I would agree that for more convoluted replies involving multiple question/replies then it's not
good and that the pertinent facts should be embedded in the relevant OP section.

Just my view.

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Walter Mitty]

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

> 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.

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.

Personally I tend to adhere to the method used in the individual thread.

Yes, I was trolling because I think it should be left to the poster to decide.

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[Pat Clancy]

"I wonder if there has been any research done to see if tandem stokers habitially have uneven leg
development in the same way that skeletons of English longbowmen on battlefields show asymmetric arm
development as witnessed by the robustness of muscle attachments."

No need to go that far back and study skeletons - you can use live people right now. Ever notice the
asymmetrical arms on a serious tennis player? The most obvious example I can remember is Jimmy
Connors. His playing arm (left?) was huge compared to the other.

Pat

 

[Chris Freeman]

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.

chris

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.

 

[Top Sirloin]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:54:02 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I stopped fighting top posters a lot time ago - it take a lot less time to killfile them.

--
Scott Johnson Fry Mumia http://www.danielfaulkner.com

 

[Robin Hubert]

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]

 

[Walter Mitty]

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?

--
Walter Mitty.

 

[David Damerell]

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.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Zeldabee]

Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Top Sirloin <[email protected]>:
> >
> > 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 sometimes killfile people with obnoxious posting preferences. If their posts aren't interesting
enough to compensate for the annoyance of reading them, I stop bothering.

HTH.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[Mark Hickey]

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