Cycling related letter in SMH today

[Baka Dasai]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:32:42 GMT, dewatf said (and I quote):
> If you are a wealthy employed cyclist in SF and Portland, who likes living
> in dense urban areas then things are great. Taxes of others are supporting
> you.

Can you explain this? I would have thought the opposite - that suburban
livers are subsidized by the wealthy (and wealth-creating) people in the
inner-city.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Terry Collins]

Baka Dasai wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:32:42 GMT, dewatf said (and I quote):
>
>>If you are a wealthy employed cyclist in SF and Portland, who likes living
>>in dense urban areas then things are great. Taxes of others are supporting
>>you.
>
>
> Can you explain this? I would have thought the opposite - that suburban
> livers are subsidized by the wealthy (and wealth-creating) people in the
> inner-city.

What, your pretenious wanking?

Cities are definitely subsidized and highly dependant on the surrounding
suburban areas and farming areas for all their supplies. You want to
look at how much the rest of the people in NSW get charged to support
the sucking black hole of Sydney. Works the same for just about every
other state too.

Unfortunately, you cannot actually "create wealth" in a city, just be a
blood sucking parasite off the wealth creation taking place in mines,
factories, farms, supermarkets,etc, etc, etc.

Whilst all the property owners pay rates to local government entities
and they tend to be spent in local areas, it is all the other state fees
and charges that get disportionately spent on the central orifice of the
jellyfish known as sydney. In Australia, think GST, which goes to the
state in which it is collected (unless you live in NSW, where you
subsidize other states), and look at where that ends up.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

dewatf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:30:47 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:
>
> Sorry I didn't reply earlier, was unusually busy in the last fortnight.
>
> > Have you substantial experience in dealing with academia or are you
> > just talking aloud?
>
> I deal with lots academic work. These days citing another academic is taken

And have muchly good English to show for it...

> as proof and evidence. What you end up with is a bunch of academics all
> citing each other and proving nothing. What's more academic work is now so
> specialised that academics go to conferences and only attend their groups,
> only publish papers on their topic only read by like minded people. They
> never have to confront any broader opinion or any arguments contrary to
> them. And in academia where relativism has taken hold there is no need to
> take in to account any contrary evidence because everybody is entitled to
> their own opinion, they are all right and therefore anything they say is
> right. The groupthink is sickening.

Really? That's not my experience of it. Are you posting from America or
something?

> That is different from science which requires replicable experimentation,
> and attempts to prove that there is real cause and effect, not just
> correlations.

Better they comment on each other's work, than present opinion as fact,
as you do.

Tam

 

[warrwych]

dave wrote:
> I remember reading that bicycles were far more numerous than horses in
> the 1880s and 90s.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep a horse? This is why cars
were invented.

Theo

Really?? I thought it was because of the large amounts of solid waste they deposited on the streets...

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:30:46 +1100
warrwych <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep a horse? This is why
>> cars
>> were invented.
>
> Really?? I thought it was because of the large amounts of solid waste
> they deposited on the streets...

Kept heaps of people gainfully employed that did.

Zebee

 

[cfsmtb]

They never have to confront any broader opinion or any arguments contrary to them. And in academia where relativism has taken hold there is no need to take in to account any contrary evidence because everybody is entitled to their own opinion, they are all right and therefore anything they say is right. The groupthink is sickening.

<waffle snipped>

A populist 'anti-intellectual' huh? Bias against hard data analysis? Groupthink?!? Oh please **** off back to the Dark Ages. You're potentially just as big a ****** as those you despise. Regardless though, most so-called academics can think on their feet, unlike a thicko such as yourself, who takes over a fortnight to respond to a ng discussion. Now frig off back to aus.tv fantasyland and cease boring us shitless.