Campy: Lower Gears for Extremely Sporadic Use



Dans le message de news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On 04 May 2008 12:07:32 +0300, [email protected] (A R:nen)
> wrote:
>
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> $12? So that's 3 coins worth. (3 2 quid coins, or more practically
>>> 2x$5 + 1x$2 if you had sensible coinage). Takes up less space in my
>>> wallet than 8 notes.

>>
>> But weighs more and can't be used for emergency tyre repair. (Not
>> that I'm advocating low-denomination banknotes in general, but this
>> *is* r.b.tech.)

>
> Dear O,
>
> To be fair, you could use a coin as a screwdriver if you could find a
> big slotted screw on your bicycle. (Perhaps a dust cap or a down-tube
> friction shifter? Or maybe to make an emergency call if you could find
> an increasingly rare pay phone?)
>
> Clive's scheme for carrying imaginary $2 and $5 US coins requires
> everyone else to carry ones to make change for me (or for me to spend
> either $2 or $5 for stuff that I want to pay only a dollar for).
>
> Coins may work well for Clive, but paper bills became much more
> convenient for me years ago. (Some people use coin machines routinely,
> but the parking meters that used to eat my change vanished long ago in
> my neck of the woods, and I never had much use for vending machines.)
>
> That's why I had a $5 bill and seven $1 bills handy, folded
> conveniently next to the twenties that I carry anyway--all paper, no
> coins.
>
> The few coins that I do get in change (or pick up from the floors of
> grocery stores and the college parking lot) spiral down this yellow
> plastic toy, which I bought years ago (with accumulated change) after
> seeing its big brother at the Salt Lake City Zoo:
> http://i32.tinypic.com/2rr3sc8.jpg
>
> They still sell my yellow spiral wishing-well:
> http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/toy/index.html
>
> The $25 price suggests that, for many people, change is entertainment.
>
> Anyway, to take the large-denomination coin argument to its logical
> extreme, why not do away with paper money altogether and issue $10,
> $20, $50, and $100 coins, all made from almost worthless metal?
>
> After all, coins are cheaper to make than bills because they last so
> much longer, and some people argue that carrying coins is wonderfully
> easier than putting notes into wallets.
>
> A) Coins smaller than clumsy old silver dollars are too easy to lose.
> Losing a quarter is no problem, which is why you find them lying
> around parking lots. Losing a $20 coin is quite a different matter.
>
> B) Intrinsically worthless coins are much, much easier to counterfeit
> than bills.
>
> C) Lots of people hate to carry coins in their pockets.
>
> D) Heck, lots of people hate to carry cash. The coin versus cash
> argument grows increasingly academic. Just as cash replaced coins for
> serious amounts long ago, so are credit cards increasingly replacing
> paper money.
>
> Those seven $1 bills and single $5 bill have been in my wallet for
> months now, unused, just like the twenties next to them. The turnover
> rate in my wallet is so low that I had to look just now to make sure
> that I haven't got any old small-portrait twenties.
>
> It's a little like spare tubes and spokes. Some riders who grew up
> patching flats now find that their spare tubes have cracked with age
> and folding when they finally suffer a flat tire, and most riders quit
> carrying spare spokes a long time ago.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Increasingly more on topic, as per usual. We are so grateful.
 
OK, I correct my origional statement:

30-29 is the lowest that any yclist would need to go, regardless of how
steep.

Which is why I have Shimano on my tourer. There has been many of times I
was gratefull for my 26-34! Try dragging 25-30 pounds of camping gear up
a 12-15% grade with your 29-30 and you'll see what I mean.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
 
I'm the OP on this thread, which even by Usenet standards has morphed
remarkably afar!

Just want to report, if anyone cares, that the lower gears worked. I
completed the Breathless Agony on Saturday well within the time requirements.
I didn't use the 29 cog very much, but the 26 got extremely heavy use,
especially on the one thirty mile climb.

The downside was the 13 tooth smallest cog, which on the mostly downhill 42
mile return from the official finish would only let me crank about 31 MPH.
This was into a roughly 25 mph headwind, but the descent was steep enough that
I could have cranked a little faster than that, even being fairly tired from
the 12000 feet of climbing. But we'll live.

Needless to say, the original cluster was put back before Sunday's club ride.
We'll put back the 13-29 for the Hearbreak Hundred in three weeks, if I do
decide to try it.

Art
 
On May 2, 10:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
> As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by other
> manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the mechanical
> advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled tensile loads
> on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with increased number
> of front and rear sprockets.
>
> I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item, chains
> and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take over the
> market.  I see that has occurred at Mavic and other suppliers already.
>

I think another reason why chains are less durable today is the fact
that we now have 10 cogs in the rear requiring a very narrow/thin
chain. Add in the fact that 10 speed chains cost anywhere from
$25-100 that seem to require changing every 1000-1500 miles leads to
increase cost with less durability.

Unfortunately, the cost of consumables like chains, cassettes, rims
and brake pads have all increased and is not help by using narrower,
weaker parts! Of course, the mfrs love it as it sells more of their
goods....
 
On May 2, 1:02 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a
> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > Andrew Muzi wrote:

>
> >>> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the
> >>> same sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously
> >>> believes then lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a
> >>> 45-21, regardless of how steep the hill is.

>
> >> Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the
> >> standard Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo
> >> race bikes. In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped bikes
> >> are 50-34 with a 12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low rear. You
> >> might get out more, look at new things a bit.

>
> > There are good reasons for not going to smaller CW both for whom they
> > are made and what it does for chains. Campagnolo started with a
> > tradition from old man Tullio to supply professional racers with good
> > reliable competition equipment. That was before the day of the "me
> > too" generation that wanted to look like racers and spent large sums
> > on equipment that had an appearance of professionalism.

>
> > The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
> > bicycle of yore cost. At the same time they are unable to operate the
> > classic Silca plastic frame fit tire pump, switching to mini pumps
> > that require endless strokes. They demanded ever more gears and that
> > they can be shifted under load while not letting go of the bars at the
> > flip of a finger.

>
> > In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and 13-24t
> > in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in the Alps.
> > Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and everything in between.

>
> > As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by other
> > manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the mechanical
> > advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled tensile loads
> > on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with increased number
> > of front and rear sprockets.

>
> > I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item, chains
> > and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take over the
> > market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other suppliers already.

>
> > I am not amused.

>
> > Jobst Brandt

>
> Not amused, just special. So very special. It's a wonder you aren't the
> king of the cycling industry. I just don't understand how they fail to
> appreciate your genius.


What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

Davy Haynes
 
Dans le message de
news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On May 2, 1:02 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a
>> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>> Andrew Muzi wrote:

>>
>>>>> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the
>>>>> same sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously
>>>>> believes then lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is
>>>>> a 45-21, regardless of how steep the hill is.

>>
>>>> Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the
>>>> standard Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo
>>>> race bikes. In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped
>>>> bikes are 50-34 with a 12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low
>>>> rear. You might get out more, look at new things a bit.

>>
>>> There are good reasons for not going to smaller CW both for whom
>>> they are made and what it does for chains. Campagnolo started with
>>> a tradition from old man Tullio to supply professional racers with
>>> good reliable competition equipment. That was before the day of
>>> the "me too" generation that wanted to look like racers and spent
>>> large sums on equipment that had an appearance of professionalism.

>>
>>> The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
>>> bicycle of yore cost. At the same time they are unable to operate
>>> the classic Silca plastic frame fit tire pump, switching to mini
>>> pumps that require endless strokes. They demanded ever more gears
>>> and that they can be shifted under load while not letting go of the
>>> bars at the flip of a finger.

>>
>>> In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and
>>> 13-24t in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in
>>> the Alps. Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and
>>> everything in between.

>>
>>> As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by
>>> other manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the
>>> mechanical advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled
>>> tensile loads on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with
>>> increased number of front and rear sprockets.

>>
>>> I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item,
>>> chains and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take
>>> over the market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other
>>> suppliers already.

>>
>>> I am not amused.

>>
>>> Jobst Brandt

>>
>> Not amused, just special. So very special. It's a wonder you
>> aren't the king of the cycling industry. I just don't understand
>> how they fail to appreciate your genius.

>
> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
> personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
> not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?
>
> Davy Haynes


Maybe. I guess you felt the quip "I am not amused," was appropriate.

Yet Brandt does not have current knowledge of most of the materials he
regularly comments on, preferring life to be as it was in his days of myth
and lore. He relies on CRR information for tires long out of production,
refuses to digest new material, even when it is spoonfed to him, is the only
person who believes that wheelbuilding would never have a chance of being
successful without his written observation of ancient practices, and trots
out the Alps as indicative of serious riding.

Manufacturers certainly do their best to run profitable enterprises,
occasionally at the expense of quality, but this simply does not last long
without suffering in the marketplace. The continued success of production
that does not conform to the preconceptions of Brandt remains an enigma, not
an endorsement of his offerings.

Thanks
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
"Arthur Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm the OP on this thread, which even by Usenet standards has morphed
> remarkably afar!
>
> Just want to report, if anyone cares, that the lower gears worked. I
> completed the Breathless Agony on Saturday well within the time
> requirements.
> I didn't use the 29 cog very much, but the 26 got extremely heavy use,
> especially on the one thirty mile climb.


Thanks for getting back with results, and glad to hear it all worked.

cheers,
clive
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 2, 1:02 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a
>> r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>
>>
>>
>>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the
>>>>> same sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously
>>>>> believes then lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a
>>>>> 45-21, regardless of how steep the hill is.
>>>> Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the
>>>> standard Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo
>>>> race bikes. In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped bikes
>>>> are 50-34 with a 12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low rear. You
>>>> might get out more, look at new things a bit.
>>> There are good reasons for not going to smaller CW both for whom they
>>> are made and what it does for chains. Campagnolo started with a
>>> tradition from old man Tullio to supply professional racers with good
>>> reliable competition equipment. That was before the day of the "me
>>> too" generation that wanted to look like racers and spent large sums
>>> on equipment that had an appearance of professionalism.
>>> The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
>>> bicycle of yore cost. At the same time they are unable to operate the
>>> classic Silca plastic frame fit tire pump, switching to mini pumps
>>> that require endless strokes. They demanded ever more gears and that
>>> they can be shifted under load while not letting go of the bars at the
>>> flip of a finger.
>>> In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and 13-24t
>>> in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in the Alps.
>>> Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and everything in between.
>>> As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by other
>>> manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the mechanical
>>> advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled tensile loads
>>> on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with increased number
>>> of front and rear sprockets.
>>> I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item, chains
>>> and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take over the
>>> market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other suppliers already.
>>> I am not amused.
>>> Jobst Brandt

>> Not amused, just special. So very special. It's a wonder you aren't the
>> king of the cycling industry. I just don't understand how they fail to
>> appreciate your genius.

>
> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
> personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
> not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?
>


you must be a noob. people have taken the time and made the effort to
explain to jobst the nature of his mistakes for decades, yet he never
learns. he does however respond with extroardinary derision and scorn,
much to the delight of the peanut gallery, and it is this ridiculous
"defense" of the indefensible that makes him such a target.
 
On May 5, 11:42 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> I'm the OP on this thread, which even by Usenet standards has morphed
> remarkably afar!


Did I miss something? Iraq/Iran, Canadian national health care,
baseball and steroids, hooooomosexuality? Just to name a few of the
usual morphs, missed.

> Just want to report, if anyone cares,


please don't be such a pouty distraction!

> that the lowergearsworked.  I
> completed the Breathless Agony on Saturday well within the time requirements.  
> I didn't use the 29 cog very much, but the 26 got extremely heavy use,
> especially on the one thirty mile climb.


Ah, the seldom-used bailout gear, and a new low that worked. One tooth
difference, eh? How about that <g>?

Good deal, you tried something that worked out very well.

> The downside was the 13 tooth smallest cog, which on the mostly downhill 42
> mile return from the official finish would only let me crank about 31 MPH. 
> This was into a roughly 25 mph headwind, but the descent was steep enough that
> I could have cranked a little faster than that, even being fairly tired from
> the 12000 feet of climbing.  But we'll live.


Some people don't believe in the 12 but it does have its uses.
Winnebago Tag, anyone?

If you beg/borrow/buy a loose 12 cog, maybe you'd find a 12-14 jump
would work. Or, mix-matching cogs from Campy loose sets, to experiment
with "profile"? Never done it personally but why not?

> Needless to say, the original cluster was put back before Sunday's club ride.  
> We'll put back the 13-29 for the Hearbreak Hundred in three weeks, if I do
> decide to try it.


Always easy to spend someone else's money, but maybe the time is right
to build up a Special Event wheel, nice and light ("30-mile climb"),
maybe a special tire on there, too, with your choice of cogs that just
stays on there. No late "thrash" switching parts around, and an
emergency spare wheel that could quickly be pressed into service, even
if not geared wonderfully for club or other more mundane rides. Not to
mention the "psych" angle. --D-y
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dans le message de
> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
> :
> > What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
> > personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
> > not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
> > arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
> > manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?


[...]

And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.

--
Michael Press
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule
>>> or personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion.
>>> Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
>>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
>>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

>
> [...]
>
> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.


Thanks for pointing out the accuracy of what I wrote
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar�
>> :
>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
>>> personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
>>> not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
>>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
>>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

>
> [...]
>
> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.
>


here, let me replace what you snipped out of context:

"Brandt does not have current knowledge of most of the materials he
regularly comments on, preferring life to be as it was in his days of
myth and lore. He relies on CRR information for tires long out of
production, refuses to digest new material, even when it is spoonfed to
him, is the only person who believes that wheelbuilding would never have
a chance of being successful without his written observation of ancient
practices, and trots out the Alps as indicative of serious riding."

so, is that "attack" like pointing out the truth? or "attack" like
bullshitting.

because from where i'm sitting, sandy's words appear to be a remarkably
succinct, observant and accurate summation of the facts. yours otoh are
worthless ******** from a worthless schmuck.
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule
>>> or personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion.
>>> Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
>>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
>>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

>
> [...]
>
> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.


Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could evaluate your
huffery and puffery.

HTH (BKIW), BS
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
>> :
>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule or
>>> personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion. Why
>>> not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
>>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
>>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

>
> [...]
>
> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.
>

And in other breaking news...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dans le message de
>>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>> déclaré
>>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule
>>>> or personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion.
>>>> Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
>>>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
>>>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

>> [...]
>>
>> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.

>
> Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could evaluate your
> huffery and puffery.
>

The threaded newsreader remains a mystery to Sorni.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Dans le message de
> >> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> >> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
> >> déclaré
> >>>
> >>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with ridicule
> >>> or personal attack when apparently they have a different opinion.
> >>> Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand, or technical
> >>> arguments to support your differing view? Are cut-downs and one-up-
> >>> manship all you have to offer this newsgroup?

> >
> > [...]
> >
> > And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.

>
> Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could evaluate your
> huffery and puffery.


You know what he wrote.
I chose to remove it because of what it is.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>>> déclaré
>>>>>
>>>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with
>>>>> ridicule or personal attack when apparently they have a different
>>>>> opinion. Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand,
>>>>> or technical arguments to support your differing view? Are
>>>>> cut-downs and one-up- manship all you have to offer this
>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.

>>
>> Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could
>> evaluate your huffery and puffery.


> You know what he wrote.
> I chose to remove it because of what it is.


If my server had dropped his post (happens from time to time) or if were a
plonked poster, I'd have no alternative but to accept your version of what
he wrote. What he DID write was hardly "ridicule and attack", so I must
conclude that you're either delusional or dishonest.

Simple solution? Don't be a "trim and run" insulter. It's bad form...at
best.

HTH (BSKIW), BS
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>>> déclaré
>>>>>
>>>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with
>>>>> ridicule or personal attack when apparently they have a different
>>>>> opinion. Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand,
>>>>> or technical arguments to support your differing view? Are
>>>>> cut-downs and one-up- manship all you have to offer this
>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.

>>
>> Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could
>> evaluate your huffery and puffery.

>
> You know what he wrote.
> I chose to remove it because of what it is.


Accurate.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dans le message de
>>>>> news:a7569da5-faf5-4183-9e64-2af700215502@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a r�fl�chi, et puis a
>>>>> d�clar�
>>>>>> What I don't understand is why some choose to respond with
>>>>>> ridicule or personal attack when apparently they have a different
>>>>>> opinion. Why not provide your perspective on the topic at hand,
>>>>>> or technical arguments to support your differing view? Are
>>>>>> cut-downs and one-up- manship all you have to offer this
>>>>>> newsgroup?
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> And Sandy replies with ridicule and attack.
>>> Gee, if you didn't DELETE what he wrote, then the reader could
>>> evaluate your huffery and puffery.

>
>> You know what he wrote.
>> I chose to remove it because of what it is.

>
> If my server had dropped his post (happens from time to time) or if were a
> plonked poster, I'd have no alternative but to accept your version of what
> he wrote. What he DID write was hardly "ridicule and attack", so I must
> conclude that you're either delusional or dishonest.
>
> Simple solution? Don't be a "trim and run" insulter. It's bad form...at
> best.
>
> HTH (BSKIW), BS
>
>


well said.
 
On May 2, 10:18 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> The small dollar coins with Susan B. and Saca-unspellable and
> soon-to-come presidents look almost like quarters. I shudder at the
> thought of standing behind little old ladies painstakingly picking
> through their coin purses and separating quarters from dollars in the
> checkout line.


Here in Canada, our dollar and two-dollar coins ("Loonie" and
"Toonie", respectively) are quite popular. Two things helped them be
accepted:

1) The loonie is gold-coloured, so there's no mistaking it for a
twenty-five cent piece. The toonie is even more distinctive, being
bimetallic.

2) We stopped making the paper equivalents at virtually the same time
as the coins were issued.

That second step is critical. To hell with acceptance, make it so.

As to the 'pocket full of metal' issue, yes, they weigh you down more
than bills, but since we have fairly high sales taxes applied at time
of purchase (and generally 'hidden' until then) we would have that
problem anyway. Personally, I think they encourage people to pay with
exact change or 'Dilbert Values' (paying $2.12 when the bill is $1.87
to get a quarter back instead of $0.13.)

If we ever issue a $5 coin, I hope they put the Dionnes on it.