Cheapo bike



H

half_pint

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
> > them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
> > accept that there are some facts they do not like.
> >
> > And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
> > I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
> > pointed out I was wrong.
> >
> > My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
> > the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
> > experienced they are.
> >

> You need to learn to post those 'facts' accurately then, because,
> believe me, you aren't at the moment. The 'facts' are dribbled out step
> by step, as others take issue with the holes in your 'facts'.


They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.

>
> Either state them in their accurate entirety first (or even second) off,
> or stop making out you know everything there is to know about everything.


Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
may not be so obvious to other.
>
> It might be fun for you, but posting incomplete and thus misleading
> information is irresponsible if it has a link with safety.


I don't recall posting anything misleading, or indeed anything
directly related to safety, perhaps someone could post a link to
refresh my memory.

> Of course,
> you might not give a monkey's about that. And judging from your reply,
> I'm guessing you are just here to express your 'opinions' and see just
> how much dust you can stir up doing it.


Thats not the case.

>
> Which continues to make me believe you're not a cyclist but a troll
> who's got bored of uk.legal and moved here instead.


Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.


>
> Thus, you'll be killfiled, I'm afraid to say. I for one can live
> without your opinions, and based on what you've said so far, I'm pretty
> sure you're not going to come out with any life-changing statements that
> will lead to my increased safety, enjoyment or ability when it comes to
> cycling.


Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
their
weight, maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.

>
> Think of it this way:
> You say your opinions are based on facts.
> I say my opinions are based on facts.
>
> Your opinions, after closer scrutiny, turn out to be something other
> than what you originally claimed. Do I therefore trust what you tell
> me? No, and rightly so.


Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.
>
> You could say 'oh such and such brakes blah blah' and I take it at face
> value. Off I go, brakes fail, oops. You counter with 'but not if x y
> z' - having failed to state that originally. You *knew* it was
> misleading but you continued anyway.


However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.

>
> I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best interests of
> their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just can't put you
> along side them yet.
>
> Sad, but true.


Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.

>
>
> --
>
>
> Velvet
 
T

Tumbleweed

Guest
"half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>

<snip>>
> Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
> their weight, <snip>


I thought you said you were intelligent? Apparently that doesn't include
physics, grammar or spelling.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> >>
> >>half_pint wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
> >>>>than you use, you will gain weight.
> >>>
> >>>True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.
> >>
> >>I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics you

may
> >>have heard of.

> >
> >
> > Well whatever you are obviously wrong.
> >
> >
> >>

> >
> >

>
> Gosh, how about you provide some facts to back this up then, half_pint?


I suspect Dori is trolling, Dori provides no evidence to back up his/her
statements so I am not going to waste my time any futther.
>
> Once again you're twisting the argument, insisting everyone else but you
> fully qualifies the argument to the nth degree.


I am afraid the opposite is the case as can be seen by anyone who
reads the thread.

>
> --
>
>
> Velvet
 
Z

Zardoz

Guest

>Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
>may not be so obvious to other.



Your extreme intelligence appears to have passed _all_ the posters to
this group by, as has your own capacity for self criticism.

Oh well. I've fed the Troll enough for now. The last words will no
doubt go to...
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Tumbleweed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >

> <snip>>
> > Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant

on
> > their weight, <snip>

>
> I thought you said you were intelligent? Apparently that doesn't include
> physics, grammar or spelling.


I must say your spelling nd grammer is excellent, however you physics
is far from it.

>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Zardoz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> >Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
> >may not be so obvious to other.

>
>
> Your extreme intelligence appears to have passed _all_ the posters to
> this group by, as has your own capacity for self criticism.


No comment.

>
> Oh well. I've fed the Troll enough for now. The last words will no
> doubt go to...
 
H

half_pint

Guest
>
> >
> > Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
> > them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
> > accept that there are some facts they do not like.
> >
> > And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
> > I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
> > pointed out I was wrong.
> >
> > My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
> > the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
> > experienced they are.
> >

> You need to learn to post those 'facts' accurately then, because,
> believe me, you aren't at the moment. The 'facts' are dribbled out step
> by step, as others take issue with the holes in your 'facts'.


They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.

>
> Either state them in their accurate entirety first (or even second) off,
> or stop making out you know everything there is to know about everything.


Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
may not be so obvious to other.
>
> It might be fun for you, but posting incomplete and thus misleading
> information is irresponsible if it has a link with safety.


I don't recall posting anything misleading, or indeed anything
directly related to safety, perhaps someone could post a link to
refresh my memory.

> Of course,
> you might not give a monkey's about that. And judging from your reply,
> I'm guessing you are just here to express your 'opinions' and see just
> how much dust you can stir up doing it.


Thats not the case.

>
> Which continues to make me believe you're not a cyclist but a troll
> who's got bored of uk.legal and moved here instead.


Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.


>
> Thus, you'll be killfiled, I'm afraid to say. I for one can live
> without your opinions, and based on what you've said so far, I'm pretty
> sure you're not going to come out with any life-changing statements that
> will lead to my increased safety, enjoyment or ability when it comes to
> cycling.


Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
their
weight, maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.

>
> Think of it this way:
> You say your opinions are based on facts.
> I say my opinions are based on facts.
>
> Your opinions, after closer scrutiny, turn out to be something other
> than what you originally claimed. Do I therefore trust what you tell
> me? No, and rightly so.


Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.
>
> You could say 'oh such and such brakes blah blah' and I take it at face
> value. Off I go, brakes fail, oops. You counter with 'but not if x y
> z' - having failed to state that originally. You *knew* it was
> misleading but you continued anyway.


However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.

>
> I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best interests of
> their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just can't put you
> along side them yet.
>
> Sad, but true.


Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.

I just thought I would repost this as both responses removed it :O)
 
D

Doki

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> half_pint wrote:
>>> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> half_pint wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
>>>>>> than you use, you will gain weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose
>>>>> weight.
>>>>
>>>> I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics
>>>> you may have heard of.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well whatever you are obviously wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Gosh, how about you provide some facts to back this up then,
>> half_pint?

>
> I suspect Dori is trolling, Dori provides no evidence to back up
> his/her statements so I am not going to waste my time any futther.


Are you on about me? Here are some simple facts:

A human needs energy to function.
Humans gain energy by eating and drinking.
If you consume more energy than you use, you'll store some of it in the form
of fat.
If you consume less energy than you use, you'll begin to metabolise fat, and
eventually various more important substances if you head down the route of
anorexia and so on.

Your body does not go into some sort of starvation mode whereby it uses no
energy and so you lose no weight - it's simply not possible. Humans
constantly radiate heat, and if you had the first clue about thermodynamics,
you'd understand that they need to eat. If you still don't believe me, have
a look at any mass starvation situation - no fat people.

The fact is that it's you who provides no evidence to back up anything you
say.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> half_pint wrote:
> >>> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> half_pint wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
> >>>>>> than you use, you will gain weight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose
> >>>>> weight.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics
> >>>> you may have heard of.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well whatever you are obviously wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Gosh, how about you provide some facts to back this up then,
> >> half_pint?

> >
> > I suspect Dori is trolling, Dori provides no evidence to back up
> > his/her statements so I am not going to waste my time any futther.

>
> Are you on about me? Here are some simple facts:
>
> A human needs energy to function.
> Humans gain energy by eating and drinking.
> If you consume more energy than you use, you'll store some of it in the

form
> of fat.
> If you consume less energy than you use, you'll begin to metabolise fat,

and
> eventually various more important substances if you head down the route of
> anorexia and so on.
>
> Your body does not go into some sort of starvation mode whereby it uses no
> energy and so you lose no weight - it's simply not possible. Humans
> constantly radiate heat, and if you had the first clue about

thermodynamics,
> you'd understand that they need to eat. If you still don't believe me,

have
> a look at any mass starvation situation - no fat people.
>
> The fact is that it's you who provides no evidence to back up anything you
> say.


Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you consume
you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.

>
>
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Maybe as I have a bigger brain I need a bigger head which will
> be a disadvantage terms of aerodynamics.


It could be that... But you might need to revise your understanding of
what is meant by "cod knowledge".

> > Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy than
> > you use, you will gain weight.

>
> True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.


If all else remains equal... yes it does. If your energy intake is less
than your energy usage then you will lose weight.

There are circumstances where this is not strictly true:

1) If you eat less, but still take in more energy than you use, you will
continue to gain weight, but more slowly.

2) If you reduce your energy intake to zero, you will eventually die.
While you will ultimately lose weight, the Eat Nothing At All diet plan
is not highly recommended.

Outwith those extremes, the ELF[1] diet (As seen on u.r.c) will result
in a loss of weight.

I would personally suggest that the EBF[2] diet combined with the DME[3]
life plan would have superior results.

But feel free to live on in your flat world with your tales of old
wives. Just try not to be too surprised when reality doesn't quite live
up to your expectations. ;-)

Jon

[1] Eat Less Food
[2] Eat Better Food
[3] Do More Exercise
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined the following...
> I thought you were suggesting we should throw both you and your bike
> off the cliff to see which one hit first. Or if anyone cared.


"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no-one there to hear it, and
it hits a mime... would anyone care?"

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Well you best tell them to remove the term from their offical
> website
>
> This is the guy you will need to speak to as he produced the page.
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/benson.html


I took a look, but couldn't find the word "weight" anywhere on that
page. Perhaps you could suggest another part of NASAs website where they
do actually use it in the same manner as you.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.


Erronously? Er... erroneously! And they are only erroneous if they are
based on error. Since they were pointing out errors in your logic (which
you then backtrack and attempt to patch), they are not erroneous but...

> Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
> may not be so obvious to other.


.... so I presume that you already knew that!

> Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
> than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
> became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.


Ahh. So your more intelligent than us, and you cycle more than us. I
presume that you are also more virile, more good-looking and infinitely
more modest than anyone else here!

> Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant on
> their weight,


Or indeed, their mass, overall shape and cross-sectional area. Since
weight (As a man of your enormous intelligent must surely already be
aware) is description of the interaction between mass and an
acceleration (Usually gravity).

> maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
> thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
> of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.


Is it sunny in your world? Are the flowers pretty colours and do the
animals talk to you? Have you asked your doctor to increase your
medication?

> Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.


Well. At least you finally acknowledge that these "facts" that you
present are opinions. I can sleep soundly in the knowledge that you
probably came up with them yourself, rather than having to worry about
the existence of the retards who taught you!

> However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
> should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.


You'd hope so, but I've met a number that do not meet my minimum
requirement of "stopping the bike in a reasonable time".

> Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.


You don't have everyone's best interests at heart? It takes a big man to
admit such a thing, but you're just a half-pint.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you consume
> you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.


"Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's been
there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."

Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Well you best tell them to remove the term from their offical
> > website
> >
> > This is the guy you will need to speak to as he produced the page.
> > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/benson.html

>
> I took a look, but couldn't find the word "weight" anywhere on that
> page. Perhaps you could suggest another part of NASAs website where they
> do actually use it in the same manner as you.


Well it is clearly stated at the bottom of the link below
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html
that it is by by Tom Benson and the
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/benson.html
link is right next to his name.



>
> Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > They are clarified when people erronously disagree with them.

>
> Erronously? Er... erroneously! And they are only erroneous if they are
> based on error. Since they were pointing out errors in your logic (which
> you then backtrack and attempt to patch), they are not erroneous but...


eh??

>
> > Well unfortunately I am extremely intelligent so what is obvious to me
> > may not be so obvious to other.

>
> ... so I presume that you already knew that!
>
> > Wrong, I am a cyclist amd I probably cycle far more frequentlly
> > than a lot of people here who may be leisure cyclists. I only
> > became aware of the group through legal issues related to cycling.

>
> Ahh. So your more intelligent than us, and you cycle more than us. I
> presume that you are also more virile, more good-looking and infinitely
> more modest than anyone else here!



Well basically yes but I far too modest so say so myself!

>
> > Apart from the fact that that the speed of falling object is dependant

on
> > their weight,

>
> Or indeed, their mass, overall shape and cross-sectional area. Since
> weight (As a man of your enormous intelligent must surely already be
> aware) is description of the interaction between mass and an
> acceleration (Usually gravity).


Yes it is dependent on other factors too but weight is indeed one of them.

>
> > maybe one day when a piano drops out of a window and you are
> > thinking, "Well I have another 10 seconds before I need to step out
> > of the way" you will get the gist of what I am saying.

>
> Is it sunny in your world? Are the flowers pretty colours and do the
> animals talk to you? Have you asked your doctor to increase your
> medication?


Never ask a doctor to increase you medication, he won't, the only
way to to get extra medication is to suggest cutting down on what you
are already taking!!

>
> > Nope my opinions have not changed whatsoever.

>
> Well. At least you finally acknowledge that these "facts" that you
> present are opinions. I can sleep soundly in the knowledge that you
> probably came up with them yourself, rather than having to worry about
> the existence of the retards who taught you!


My opinions are based on facts and are thus facts themselves as I cannot
lie.

>
> > However that is not the case and any brakes you buy in the UK
> > should (I would imagine) have to meet a safty standard.

>
> You'd hope so, but I've met a number that do not meet my minimum
> requirement of "stopping the bike in a reasonable time".


Ah but you idea of reasonable appear to be in contradiction with the
laws of physics, which is not particularly surprising considering.

>
> > Yes it sad, but that is the way it is.

>
> You don't have everyone's best interests at heart?


Did I ever say I had? Please post a link with that quote.

>It takes a big man to admit such a thing, but you're just a half-pint.


half_pint actually, your shift-key seems to have malfunctioned.


>
> Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Obviously if you eat less but expend even less energy than you consume
> > you will still gain weight. Pretty straight forward stuff.

>
> "Goalpost. I didn't see any goalpost. Oh. That goalpost. Nah that's been
> there for ages. Hasn't moved one inch."


Looks like your goal posts have wheels on them.

>
> Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Maybe as I have a bigger brain I need a bigger head which will
> > be a disadvantage terms of aerodynamics.

>
> It could be that... But you might need to revise your understanding of
> what is meant by "cod knowledge".


?

>
> > > Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy than
> > > you use, you will gain weight.

> >
> > True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.

>
> If all else remains equal... yes it does. If your energy intake is less
> than your energy usage then you will lose weight.


Ah but that qualification was not in my statement which makes the
rest of you post meaningless.

>
> There are circumstances where this is not strictly true:
>
> 1) If you eat less, but still take in more energy than you use, you will
> continue to gain weight, but more slowly.
>
> 2) If you reduce your energy intake to zero, you will eventually die.
> While you will ultimately lose weight, the Eat Nothing At All diet plan
> is not highly recommended.


Unless you are on a hospital drip.

>
> Outwith those extremes, the ELF[1] diet (As seen on u.r.c) will result
> in a loss of weight.
>
> I would personally suggest that the EBF[2] diet combined with the DME[3]
> life plan would have superior results.
>
> But feel free to live on in your flat world with your tales of old
> wives. Just try not to be too surprised when reality doesn't quite live
> up to your expectations. ;-)


Whatever.

>
> Jon
>
> [1] Eat Less Food
> [2] Eat Better Food
> [3] Do More Exercise
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Well it is clearly stated at the bottom of the link below
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html
> that it is by by Tom Benson and the
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/benson.html
> link is right next to his name.


Oops. The only problem is that the good Mr Benson uses it correctly.
"One force is the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the
object".

"Thus terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of weight, if
you dispute then have a word with Nasa."

Yet on the original page which you otherwise copied verbatim, the above
line does not exist. Instead Benson goes on to talk about cross-
sectional area.

The implication from a number of your posts is that you use weight in
the lay form to mean mass, not to refer to the force of gravity acting
on a mass.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> ?


Exactly.

> > If all else remains equal... yes it does. If your energy intake is less
> > than your energy usage then you will lose weight.

>
> Ah but that qualification was not in my statement which makes the
> rest of you post meaningless.


Sorry. I see now. So what you made was a sweeping generalisation, that
was only true for some circumstances but without qualifying those
circumstances, even though your soaring intellect suggests that you must
have known that they existed.

Good to see you're contributing fully to this and not just patching the
holes as you go!

> > 2) If you reduce your energy intake to zero, you will eventually die.
> > While you will ultimately lose weight, the Eat Nothing At All diet plan
> > is not highly recommended.

>
> Unless you are on a hospital drip.


You believe that a hospital drip (Which gives no energy) will allow you
to stay alive while not eating at all? Now that's faith.

Jon