"brittle" vs. non-ductile

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:18:58 -0000, Chalo wrote:

> You're right about that. And any kind of cycling is categorically
> more wholesome. I just don't see why for some folks, cycling has
> degenerated into something just about as shallow and materialistic as
> cruising in your hoopty rolling on 22" spinners while rattling the
> doors off with your loud subwoofers. To me, it seems like the
> activity of cycling intrinsically promotes enough introspection to
> grow folks out of that mindset.

The activity of cycling on a bike like yours, that is. Plastic bikes
clearly promote selfish, undesirable extroversion

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:47:05 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> It's all a matter of degree. If that's the worst way in which he impacts
> "the planet", it could be worse.

Of course it could be, but I wasn't previously aware that amateurs could
chew through so much petrol for so little riding, purely in the name of
competition. That bothers me a lot more than the conspicuous consumption of
riding a CF bike in a team outfit.

> "Carbon neutral." That's the buzz-phrase these days. The idea that you can
> somehow mitigate the damage you're doing by paying someone off.

Yeah. The fact that dirty industries have warmed to the idea worries me.
They must have figured out how to twist the rules to their advantage.

 

[A Muzi]

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> It's all a matter of degree. If that's the worst way in which he impacts
>> "the planet", it could be worse.

Michael Warner wrote:
> Of course it could be, but I wasn't previously aware that amateurs could
> chew through so much petrol for so little riding, purely in the name of
> competition. That bothers me a lot more than the conspicuous consumption of
> riding a CF bike in a team outfit.

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> "Carbon neutral." That's the buzz-phrase these days. The idea that you can
>> somehow mitigate the damage you're doing by paying someone off.

Michael Warner wrote:
> Yeah. The fact that dirty industries have warmed to the idea worries me.
> They must have figured out how to twist the rules to their advantage.

All regulation shares that aspect. If not at the outset, regulated and
regulators wise up later.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:31:32 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:

> None of your (not at all humble) business.

If you post something here, you're inviting opinions about it. And given
what we're doing to the world's oil supply and atmosphere, spending
hours driving somewhere just to roll down a hill and go home again is
certainly something I have an opinion about.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:31:32 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> None of your (not at all humble) business.
>
> If you post something here, you're inviting opinions about it. And
> given what we're doing to the world's oil supply and atmosphere,
> spending hours driving somewhere just to roll down a hill and go home
> again is certainly something I have an opinion about.

That why you deleted your comment (and its context) that prompted mine?

What about a parent that drives a kid an hour and a half for a recital or
audition? What about Hollywood film productions that spew **** in the air
24-7 for months and months while pampered stars sit idling in their opulent
trailers?

But you choose to express faux concern and genuine disdain for a
(world-class, apparently) cyclist who travels to competitions?

I repeat: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. (Just a guess: you're in favor of
banning transfats and fast-food restaurants, too, right?)

Bill "stop do-gooder control, dammit" S.

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:46 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

> All regulation shares that aspect. If not at the outset, regulated and
> regulators wise up later.

The supposedly regulated usually end up the winners, because they're
able to buy off the regulator and/or hire better lawyers to find lucrative
loopholes in the regulations. Until there's a disaster on the order of what
Enron did to California's power supply, anyway.

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:31:38 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:

> That why you deleted your comment (and its context) that prompted mine?

I quote the minimum that seems necessary. There's no conspiracy at work.

> I repeat: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

I heard you the first time. Shouting doesn't make any difference (except to
make you sound like a bit of a moron).

> Bill "stop do-gooder control, dammit" S.

It seems as though it's undesirable /opinions/ you want to stop, not
control. Otherwise you'd wait until someone proposed that no-one outside
easy riding distance of the start of an amateur race be allowed to compete
in it.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 5:41 pm, Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:56:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > Just a half hour? Consider yourself lucky. An hour of driving for a
> > several-hour long trail ride is well worth it.
>
> Worth it to you, maybe, but what does the planet think about it?


I imagine the planet would like us to hurry up and use up all the oil,
spew all the emissions that we're going to spew so it can get on with
the business of shucking us off. The earth will still be here spinning
like it does, working up a new ecosystem long after we've ruined our
own ability to exist on its surface. In short, I don't think the earth
gives a ****.

Also, after bike commuting nearly every workday for the past 20 years,
I may have accrued more 'carbon credits' than the average American,
eh?

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 11:15 pm, Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:31:32 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:
> > None of your (not at all humble) business.
>
> If you post something here, you're inviting opinions about it. And given
> what we're doing to the world's oil supply and atmosphere, spending
> hours driving somewhere just to roll down a hill and go home again is
> certainly something I have an opinion about.

That degree of raging self-righteousness is generally accompanied by
a heaping helping of hypocrisy. But not in 'Michael Warner.' He has
eliminated all frivolous energy consumption from his daily existence.

Robert

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:21:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> That degree of raging self-righteousness is generally accompanied by
> a heaping helping of hypocrisy. But not in 'Michael Warner.' He has
> eliminated all frivolous energy consumption from his daily existence.

You can tell that from there? Since you have telemetric access to my
power and gas meters, please send me daily updates

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:21:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> That degree of raging self-righteousness is generally accompanied by
> a heaping helping of hypocrisy. But not in 'Michael Warner.'

Oh, and I do apologize for cravenly hiding behind my real name,
'r15757'. LOL. What I've always heard about AOL users must be true.

 

[Jay Hill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Bill "stop do-gooder control, dammit" S.

Which is its own kind of do-gooder control.

PS. You should learn-up about trans fats, there, Homer.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 1:31 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> That why you deleted your comment (and its context) that prompted mine?

Bill Sornson has been hanging around Usenet for many years. Yet
he _still_ can't understand that it's normal to delete parts of
posts. He still can't understand that anyone _else_ can read the
entire previous post with a click of the mouse button - or less.

Can you imagine a live conversation with this guy? He'd force you to
always repeat everything he said before adding a comment of your
own!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:31:38 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Bill "stop do-gooder control, dammit" S.

> It seems as though it's undesirable /opinions/ you want to stop, not
> control.

Bull. Do-gooders with /opinions/ are proposing /legislation/ left
and...well, more left every day.

> Otherwise you'd wait until someone proposed that no-one
> outside easy riding distance of the start of an amateur race be
> allowed to compete in it.

Well, when Jay merely said this: "My brother is an avid masters MTB racer
and state champ who lives in
Washington. He may drive hours to do a five minute down-hill race.", you
replied with this:

"That's ridiculous. When your recreation turns into that sort of expensive
grind, it's time to take a good look at yourself IMHO."

Sure /sounds/ like you think something should be done about it. Why don't
you make a RULE?

"Who the hell are you?"
-- Bart Simpson

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Hill wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Bill "stop do-gooder control, dammit" S.

> Which is its own kind of do-gooder control.

Bull. Let people do what they choose. (The more information the better,
but not regulation.)

> PS. You should learn-up about trans fats, there, Homer.

Lard Police. What's next?!?

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:15 pm, Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:31:32 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> None of your (not at all humble) business.
>>
>> If you post something here, you're inviting opinions about it. And
>> given what we're doing to the world's oil supply and atmosphere,
>> spending hours driving somewhere just to roll down a hill and go
>> home again is certainly something I have an opinion about.
>
> That degree of raging self-righteousness is generally accompanied by
> a heaping helping of hypocrisy. But not in 'Michael Warner.' He has
> eliminated all frivolous energy consumption from his daily existence.

Bingo.

 

[Jay Hill]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Well, when Jay merely said this: "My brother is an avid masters MTB racer
> and state champ who lives in

Uh, to quote John Fogerty, "it ain't me" that you're quoting there.

Here's the rest of the song. It's about chicken hawk draft dodgers that
use their powerful parents' connections to dodge drafts, then send off
poor and middle class soldiers to get blown up or be killed, meanwhile
strutting and calling people who disagree with their policies cowards
and unpatriotic:


Some folks are born
made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief,"
they point the cannon right at you.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks are born
silver spoon in hand,
Lord don't they help themselves.
But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

Some folks inherit
star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war.
And when you ask them,
"How much should we give?"
They only answer "More! More! More!"

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no military son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no fortunate one.

It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't no Fortunate Son.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> In Oregon and Washington you get a lot of races out of the
>> metropolitan areas and can drive a long way to ride a short race. My
>> brother is an avid masters MTB racer and state champ who lives in
>> Washington. He may drive hours to do a five minute down-hill race.
>> Usually there is a cross-country race, too, but he has driven a long
>> way to do only a brief down-hill event -- usually as a required event
>> in some points series.
>
> That's ridiculous. When your recreation turns into that sort of expensive
> grind, it's time to take a good look at yourself IMHO.

In my prior life, about 5.5 years of being an extremely competitive jr and
decent cat-2 (which meant riding cat-1/pro races), I often wondered who
those other 80 guys were. There were maybe 20 of us who consistently figured
in the finish; the rest of the guys were some sort of filler (pack fodder).
You saw them at the start, but rarely did any beyond the 20 or so "regulars"
figure in the finish stats.

Obviously, there's some motivation for those guys to be there. It's not
something I could relate to, and possibly not you either. I never could
quite figure out why they were there back in the day, but I feel a bit
differently about it now. I can see the point to being in a race that you
have no chance of finishing in the top-10, because maybe it's a way of
testing yourself to see where you are. Maybe you came in 10 minutes behind
the winners this race, but you were 15 last time. That's progress, and
progress can keep a dream fueled.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Jay Hill wrote:
> >
> > PS. You should learn-up about trans fats, there, Homer.
>
> Lard Police. What's next?!?

There are no trans fats of any kind in lard. Almost all trans fat is
artificial and harmful, and the coverup for it by the American food
oil industry is why wholesome fats like coconut oil and palm oil have
been unfairly maligned as unhealthy. The move to ban trans fats here
and there isn't about forcing people to adopt a healthy diet (which
would be impossible to do); it's about stopping businesses from
feeding people things that injure them.

Like Jay says, you should read up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat
http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food/8F142e/8F142E0d.htm

Chalo

 

[A Muzi]

> A Muzi wrote:
>> All regulation shares that aspect. If not at the outset, regulated and
>> regulators wise up later.

Michael Warner wrote:
> The supposedly regulated usually end up the winners, because they're
> able to buy off the regulator and/or hire better lawyers to find lucrative
> loopholes in the regulations. Until there's a disaster on the order of what
> Enron did to California's power supply, anyway.

Taxi drivers, surgeons, land developers, endlessly by its nature.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971