Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Easy there, Buckwheat. It's obvious that James Annan's
> research into the design flaw of disk brakes and forks has
> threatened your world dramatically, and that you must lash
> out at him to regain your sense of order and control. It's
> pathetic to watch.
That's funny, really, to think that my world has anything to
do with disk brakes. My sense of order and control have very
little to do with the silliness of USENET. What's really
funny is that both my bikes have rim brakes! I would say
that your boy James is the one who leads the "church of
ejection force" true believers and feels threatened by the
potential for empirical information. I guess a FOIA request
runs the risk of uncovering some contradictory scripture.
That's my point, and that's what is pathetic. He's like the
guy who stands outside a movie theater protesting the film
but refuses to go in and watch it.
> You and everyone else who thinks that Annan should set up
> some kind of research laboratory should stop hiding your
> heads in the sand, and step up to the plate yourselves.
I'm not saying he should do anything of the sort, however
the good Mr Annan has shown a remarkable propensity to argue
his case. It's an absolute non sequiter at this point. Lab
testing takes resources and expertise. A simple FOIA means
you write a letter and perhaps fill out a form or two. Big
difference there. This perhaps shows that the propensity to
support the case stops when it is confronted with cold, hard
reality. Why does he choose to retire from the discussion
when he has the opportunity to prove one of the key
linchpins of his manufacturer/CPSC conspiricy? He is the one
who's made claims of stonewalling at the CPSC. It's all over
his web site. As I said previously, why does he avoid the
opportunity to breach that wall?
>Stop being a lazy ****** taking potshots at the guy who
>pointed out the problem, and turn your attentions instead
>to the people who *created* the problem- and have possibly
>put your lives and health at risk. Perhaps, while you're
>at it, you should read Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" or
>watch the movie.
Lazy ******? I don't think that posts in a NG or on a
website impart any sort of an obligation on me That's the
flaw in Annan's whole approach. What he's saying is that
he's opened the disucussion, posted what he knows, draws
conlusions and asserts that it's up to others to disprove
him. That's nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't.
Again, rather than assert the case against the CPSC, he's
been offered an avenue to obtain the information he claims
has been withheld. He's so convinced the report is flawed,
but hasn't seen it. It strikes me that it would go a long
way to bolster his case. He's shown a marked propensity to
engage in the debate, why does he now refuse the opportunity
to substantiate his claims. Are they perhaps not as strong
as he'd have us believe? What's the rest of the story?
Having been shown the door, he refuses to go through it,
citing a desire to avoid being a "performing bear." More
indication -- much like his rejection of empirical data
collection -- that he's mind's made up and he doesn't want
to be confused with the facts.
>
> This is not some ersatz court where the onus is on the
> accuser. Stop treating it like one, since that doesn't
> further the discussion or the remediation of the problem.
> Instead, hold accountable the makers of the brakes and the
> forks since they have the ethical obligation to ensure
> that their products are not inherently flawed or
> dangerous.
Nor is it some kangaroo court where every wild-eyed zealot
can throw assertions on the table and then challenge others
to disprove them. I'm all for holding the industry
accountable, and if I was convinced of the dire nature of
the problem I'd be at the front of line. The FOIA request to
the CPSC is a step in that accounatability process. I
mentioned that avenue to Annan several days ago and it was
ignored. Now the actual process has been spelled out in this
forum and Annan refuses to follow them. Why is that? He
accuses the CPSC of ignoring him and denying him information
then refuses
weasel would do such a thing.
>
> Annan has identified the problem, has gathered evidence
> and has done the math. Several mechanical engineers with
> decades of experience with bicycle design have verified
> Annan's analysis of the primary problem- the existence of
> the ejection force. The other problem identified by Annan,
> that of loosening nuts, was identified and verified long
> before Annan ever raised this issue. This too has been
> verified by several mechanical engineers. The problem has
> been presented and the next step now lies with the
> manufacturers and the various regulatory bodies.
And now is his chance to find out what the US Government's
own consumer protection agency has to say on the matter and
he avoids the topic. Why go through all the trouble to
compile the evidence you cite and then claim the "performing
bear" defense when pressed to substantiate some of his
claims that perhaps aren't so well supported?
>
> Name calling doesn't change the facts, BTW. Neither does
> your anger nor your emotional reasoning. Everybody that
> has disk brakes may just have been hoodwinked by the
> companies that made them- those are the people you should
> be challenging.
Don't mistake language for emotion. I don't get angry or
emotional over posts in a NG. I occasionally laugh at the
sillines and enjoy the debate. I'm also not afraid to call a
weasel a weasel when I think its warrented. You can call it
"emotional reasoning" if you'd like, I call it on target. Ah
the beauty of free and unencumbered exchange of ideas. And
as far as being "hoodwinked" -- that's just the sort of
conspiricy theory BS that the FOIA request could help
confirm.....or refute (oh my!). Rather than assert, why
doesn't Annan or one of his many sock puppets submit the
request? Or is that too close to reality?
Annan's the one who's heaped scorn on the CPSC. He either
wants to support his case or not, that's the whole issue.
You accuse me of being a "lazy ******", but that cuts both
ways. He can either engage and support his position or
continue to wallow in the intellectual masturbation that
USENET offers. He's convinced there's a dangerous product
out there and implies a conspiricy to avoid the topic on the
part of manufacturers and the US Gov't. FOIA is a tool to
gather infomation to support that allegation. Why is that a
problem? Hell, I'm tempted to submit the damn request myself
just to make the point. But that would require some minimal
effort, and I'm not the one with the axe to grind.
Tom
