Rick Onanian <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> On 29 Jul 2003 14:20:27 -0700, Spider <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The answer wasn't an answer to the question he asked.
> >
> > Which matters to you, how?
>
> It doesn't, I suppose. It's just a reflex-action on my part to try to clear up unclear
> communications.
Well, considering that you are having problems reading my postings, I think it is best that
glass-house dwellers avoid pitching rocks, hmmm?
> > I would tend to agree. I would hope that someone would buy a bike because they are excited about
> > *biking*, not merely because of the bike.
>
> Yes, they should buy _a_ bike because they're excited about _biking_, but _which_ bike to buy
> should be based at least partially on what excites them.
I agree. What part is occupied by emotion and what part is occupied by logic is a very personal
thing. Frankly, the ride excites me, not the mount.
> >> If he sees it sitting there and says "Oh boy I can't wait to ride", then it's better than the
> >> one he sees sitting there and says "I bought the better bike" but doesn't ride.
> >
> > I would suggest that such a person would quickly "fall out of love" no matter which bike they
> > purchased.
>
> That's possible...but then that's his problem for weighing too much on intangible feelings and too
> little on logic.
So, maybe dragging a little logic into the discussion might have merit, hmmm?
> >> Non-objective factors enter in, and DO matter.
> >
> > Then why bother asking in a public forum? If it's that personal, then what's the point of
> > seeking validation?
>
> He wasn't asking "What bike should I get?". I can see now that he used the wrong language; he
> question should have been phrased: "Will the Kona [whichever one] break while I'm riding it?"
> rather than "Should I get the Kona [whichever], or should I get the other Kona, due to breakage
> issues?"
I would have answered in the same way with the info given. I have made it clear that my *opinion*
happens to be that for his skill level, and body type, and riding style, neither Kona is the best
choice. I do not know why this simple concept is so difficult to grasp.
> >> > But Konas, especially the lighter ones, have a reputation for breaking. I don't know if this
> >> > is a fair reputation or not. He might
> >>
> >> Ah! Some useful information. You might have mentioned it in your first reply.
> >
> > You need to carefully read the original two posts in this thread - his, and my reply.
>
> Your reply said this about Konas: "I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after
> doing a lot of research, I figured out that they are quite overpriced for what you get."
>
> You did not mention breakage at all.
He did in his very first post. Like I said, read the postings before you start jumping up and down.
Did I not *just* suggest you read BOTH posts? I am wondering, seriously, if you have reading
comprehension problems.
> So, you got rid of the bike because you decided that you had originally paid too much for it?
> Isn't it a little too late at that point?
No, I got rid of the bike because my skills outgrew it. And because my nephew loved it. What the
heck? We both get a new bike!
> > Since you are whining about my advice, what is your contribution, ATM?
>
> I took a guess and suggested he go with the lighter bike that made him excited, figuring that he
> probably wouldn't break it.
But that is not a given, and it would seem to me that a guy of his mass might wish to look into a
bike beefier than the XC bike, and less massive than the freeride rig.
That leaves out Kona.
> >> > not be hucking with the thing now, but next year, he might be riding harder and in more
> >> > difficult terrain. A Titus LocoMoto might be a better choice. Or the SC Blur. Or a
> >> > Specialized FSR. Giant VT?
> >>
> >> All good suggestions, but he's excited about the Kona.
> >
> > So, if they are good suggestions, what's your malfunction?
>
> My malfunction is that I'm butting in where I no longer belong. I probably ought to butt out.
I would venture a guess that you really didn't "belong" in the first place. You really haven't
offered anything more than a vague **** in my direction.
> >> I was excited about my 1997 GT Outpost when I bought it, and I could have probably done better,
> >> but my GT has resulted in much riding and much fun, and I don't regret it one bit.
> >
> > That's where you and I differ. I bought a Kona FS bike a few years back, for reasons I will not
> > mention (non-objective, to say the least) and I do regret it. While the bike gave me decent
> > service, I leapt at the chance to give it to someone who wanted it.
>
> If it gave you decent service, what did you regret about it?
I outgrew it too quickly. And I could have spent the money so much more wisely.
> Quantifying that may cause the original poster to say "Oh ****, I don't want one of those! It
> does THAT!"
Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify. That's why I went in the direction I did. But thanks for the
advice - it was worth every penny I paid for it.
> >> Is it necessary to argue about this?
> >
> > It seems you have a bone to pick, so I'm guessing your answer to that question is "yes."
>
> My bone is that you are telling him what to do
No, I am offering suggestions, and have from the beginning. Overstating it in the imperative doesn't
mean that it was stated that way to begin with. Reading comprehension, again.
> -- buy a bike that _you_ like better (for your own, more logical reasons).
No, again. Since you have mis-read what I have written (on purpose to make a point?) - I will
clarify for you: There are other options rather than Kona. Better options.
> Your bone, I suspect, is that I'm damn near telling you what to do -- stop busting the poor dude's
> balls, give him the useful advice you have, and leave it at that.
That is an accurate statement. You are taking me to task for something over which you have no
control, and you are looking more silly with every passing post.
> It's your right to go ahead and say whatever you want and bust his balls;
I realize it's useful for you to recast the discussion this way, but I'm not busting any balls, I'm
just giving alternatives, and real ones, too. Purchased with real-life experience.
> and it's my right to bust YOUR balls about that, because this group isn't moderated.
Yes, it is. Except that you're just a hypocrite for doing what you complain that I do. Time to get
off your high horse now.
> >> How about you just say that you reccommend against Konas for the reasons mentioned, and also
> >> that you can't offer any advice on choosing between the two Kona models in question, but you
> >> can offer the advice that you did.
> >
> > Thank you for your suggestion. I'm glad that you can police up my reply so nicely. Since you are
> > chiding me about my response to Jonathan, I will just give you this one word to consider:
> >
> > Hypocrite.
>
> You're right. I stand corrected. It's no more my place to tell you to be nice to the guy than it
> is your place to insist that he do what YOU say.
There you go again. I never insisted anything. It's pure invention on your part. Try again?
> I hereby rescind my suggestion as to what you should say. While it would make usenet a nicer place
> to be, a little spice probably keeps everybody on their toes.
While you're just pissing on this parade, my advice to the guy might actually be of some use other
than just saying, "yeah, do what you want, you're gonna anyway."
> > Right. And that my body type and his are alike (as I stated in my first post in this thread, if
> > you had bothered reading it before jumping all over my butt) and that I have a similar riding
> > style as he stated his would be, AND that I have owned a Kona previously.
>
> Out of three above things that you say are in your first post, only your previous ownership of a
> Kona is present.
>
> See
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&threadm=vi880hbkn12t71%40corp.supernews.c-
> om&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRe%253A%2BHELP%2Bkikapu%2Bvs%2Bkona%2Bdawg%252C%2Bwhich%2Bto%2Bchoos-
> e%253F%26ie%3DISO- 8859-1%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
Let me quote from that article:
"Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I buy" because it's such a
personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match mine, so I feel I can be of
some use to you.
"
Is that crow tasty, or would you like some salt?
> > What experiences, exactly, do you have to offer? Other than your philosophical mumbo-jumbo?
>
> I've bought and ridden bikes, and I've seen other people do it.
Konas? Any of the other bikes I've mentioned?
No, probably not. You're just mad because I dared challenge the guy's narrow thinking.
> In my experience, an exciting bike gets ridden more than a perfectly logical bike. It's not
> mumbo-jumbo, just an observation.
In my experience, the most exciting bike is the most logical bike. But please, since you bring up
observation, let's hear some stories to illustrate your point. It would be better if they were based
in fact, BTW.
> How is getting rid of a bike because you figured out that you paid too much for it anything other
> than mumbo-jumbo?
It's called "20/20 hindsight." Surely you've heard of it?
> >> You know that you are built similarly and ride in similar conditions to the original poster,
> >> and you know what HAS worked for these conditions.
> >
> > Yes, which might actually give me insight into a better choice than Kona, maybe?
>
> Yes, and that's why you are qualified to comment on the Kona. However, I'm qualified to upgrade
> your computer, but I'm here doing this instead because you haven't asked me to upgrade it.
Actually, I'm quite competent in that field as well. What's more, it's a terrible analogy because it
has nothing to do at all with bicycles. Try again?
> >> As such, your advice is valuable.
> >
> > Except you have spent the entire post telling me how valueless it was. Make up your mind
> > already.
>
> I didn't say your advice was valueless.
In a pedantic way, that is true. The one could infer something completely different, however.
> I found your tone, and your insistence that nobody should do anything any different than you'd do
> it, to be rather offensive.
LOL! Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE have I insisted anything. You are really having trouble reading my
posts, aren't you?
>
> >> That does not mean that an answer to the original question as asked is valueless.
> >
> > Oh, but that's where you are wrong. Because my answer to it is "neither."
>
> If you want to read his question very literally, then "neither" is an answer that functions...and
> that's okay.
If it's OK, maybe you are the one who needs to have his mind expanded, hmmm?
> When I said: "It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which
> he actually wants an answer." I was trying to nudge somebody into providing an answer to his
> question, one that he could actually use based on his plans.
Frankly, he can use all of my answers. Just because they are to your liking does not mean they
aren't useful. Again, with the inferrence of "valueless."
> Why would I butt in like that? Partly as a reflex (which has gotten me bitten more times than
> I'd prefer), but also partly because people have done it for ME often enough, and I'm returning
> the favor.
I see. Since you liked it so much when someone else pulled this **** on you, you thought you'd
have a little fun at my expense? How's that working for you, Rick? Didn't quite go as you
planned, I'd bet.
Here's a hint - if you don't like a particular behavior, don't engage in it.
> > I understand that this answer is not the answer that was sought, nor was it welcome. It a risk
> > one takes when one asks a question in USENET.
>
> Agreed.
And it's a funny thing about that - sometimes the answer given is better than the one sought.
The ones I gave may or may not be better - but I figured I try. Who knew I'd run into the USENET
Lone Ranger?
Spider
