"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"



Chris Neary wrote:
> I hadn't been monitoring this thread in days, but finally my curiosity as to
> why it was still churnin' got the best of me - discovered it had gotten
> x-posted into wreck.bikes.racing and entered the Kunich zone.
>
> Have fun kiddies and don't forget to play nice!
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]
>
> "Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain" - Goethe



Amazing isn't it? I have not been around in weeks. I just pop in
occasionally to see what everyone is up to....I made the decision to
just ride, and stop talking about it. It is actually working.

I was quite surprised to see that this thread is still thriving.
Something like a weed....you think it's dead.....it appears and
spreads...I think Lance's personal life is in the news more than his
achievements. People want to know what happened to his marriage, why
he left, where he is going and his new very famous love of his life.

In between all of this is his TdF win. Not quite as exciting as the
"Drama" in his life. No comparison to any personal dirt on him. ;-)

Only in America. Where we are so bored we have to know the important
things...like his failed marriage, affairs, polital aspirations and if
this icon of the bicycle world is really a good man or a smuck. I have
not figured it out yet. I doubt I ever will. ;-) Personally I don't
care, he has to live with himself and his actions. If he is happy with
himself, that is all that matters.

BTW...I am leaving for Florida. Clearwater area. Is it worth renting
a bike in Florida in August? I've been riding in this Jersey heat
wave....I figure it can't be much worse in Florida. Or can it?

Maggie. (Stopping by)
 
Maggie wrote:
>
> BTW...I am leaving for Florida. Clearwater area. Is it worth renting
> a bike in Florida in August? I've been riding in this Jersey heat
> wave....I figure it can't be much worse in Florida. Or can it?
>
> Maggie. (Stopping by)



I doubt it would be any worse riding in Florida heat than it is in NJ.
I've been riding in the 90 degree weather around here and you just get
used to it.

Check out this trail in the Clearwater area. I have it on my list of
trails to ride in my retirement travels so maybe you can ride it and
give me a review.

http://www.pinellascounty.org/trailgd/

Beverly
 
Beverly wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >
> > BTW...I am leaving for Florida. Clearwater area. Is it worth renting
> > a bike in Florida in August? I've been riding in this Jersey heat
> > wave....I figure it can't be much worse in Florida. Or can it?
> >
> > Maggie. (Stopping by)

>
>
> I doubt it would be any worse riding in Florida heat than it is in NJ.
> I've been riding in the 90 degree weather around here and you just get
> used to it.
>
> Check out this trail in the Clearwater area. I have it on my list of
> trails to ride in my retirement travels so maybe you can ride it and
> give me a review.
>
> http://www.pinellascounty.org/trailgd/
>
> Beverly




That is a fabulous website. Those trails are right around a few of the
places I am staying. I am hop-ing around that area to visit relatives.
(No hotel expenses). I'll be in Clearwater, St. Pete, Tampa and then I
want to try to get back to the Keys to end the trip. I've been told
about The Pinellas Trail, Friendship Trail, and Fort De Soto Park. I
have been to the beaches in Clearwater and they are beautiful. I am
going to try volleyball once more, now that I am in a little better
shape. Somehow you can always find a volleyball game in Clearwater.

I've been to Florida so many times in my life, and I never saw
Disneyworld. I wonder if I am missing anything. My kids went with
their grandparents a few dozen times, but not me. I am going to try to
be one with nature this trip. ;-) Maybe someday I will go see it.
Take a ride on space mountain or something. (The beach sounds better
though)

Maggie
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Sorry I don't see it in there (which is possibly why someone called
> > Richard Burton "suggests" it has something to do with it, as opposed
> > to "stating" that it does). The references are just too vague.

>
> That must be why Wahabis commonly execute homosexuals in the public squares
> in Arabia.


Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
You do understand the difference, don't you?

If you want to start a discussion about how "common" it is, however,
you can start with some hard data - average number of executions per
year. Surely that should be a matter of public record.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> In short Mohammed said: ""Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the
> >> one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive
> >> partners in gay sexual intercourse) "

> >
> > Where? We were talking about the Koran specifically, not everything
> > Mohammed might have said.

>
> Bill, if you knew anything about Islam you'd know that they don't use the
> Koran as their only source for Muslim law. But plainly you don't.


As I said, the post I replied to specifically mentioned the Koran. Perhaps
you'd make less of a fool of yourself if you'd learn to read with some
minimal comprehension.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:

[Thanks for posting the URLs documenting Kunich's behavior while I
was out of town].

> And, lest anyone accuse me of taking Bill's side in a helmet thread, I
> choose to wear a helmet most of the time. I do not think that will protect
> me from being injured in the case of many crashes, but it certainly can't
> hurt to wear one. And I definitely don't believe in mandatory helmet laws,
> so Kunich and I actually have one small basis of common ground.


Oddly, Steven and I don't seem to really disagree - "my side" of the
helmet thread was simply that Kunich and company haven't proven their
case. I've actively opposed mandatory helmet laws, and don't tell
people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
decision.

Where we might possibly disagree is that I'd settle for an injury
reduction instead of protection from being injured. How much
protection you get is probably highly dependent on the type of
riding you do, since if the impact exceeds the helmet design
standards, all bets are off.

> Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
> somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.


Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
quickly!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> Thanks for citing that posting in order to put the discussion into context
> Steven. I see that, like Bill, you don't understand what I mean when I said
> "genetic mistake" and both of you are thinking that means that somehow it is
> a reproducible genetic change. In fact that ISN'T what that research I was
> discussing meant at all.


In fact, you referred to "genetic research that seems to indicate that
homosexuality is a genetic mistake" with no citation to any published
paper or other source, and your "discussion" of this "research"
consisted of mindless assertions like

"it proves that statement by the American Psychological
Association to be completely incorrect. Homosexuality is
stated bluntly to be a deviation in virtually every medical
text that covers it. Got that? A deviation -- NOT a
variation. And these are books that are being published right
now."

> Not that it would mean anything at all to you, but the fact is that
> along the DNA chain there are places where a break or "error" occur
> more easily than in other places. The research paper I had been
> discussing concerned the fact that there appeared to be that sort of
> error in homosexuality.


Kunich is lying - he didn't mention any such research about a "break"
in the post we are referring to, and he did not discuss any "research
paper". He just posted a highly bigoted rant that I ignored other
than quipping about his "genetic mistake" thing, which seemed too
funny to pass up.

> So you'll forgive me if I didn't understand what the hell Bill was talking
> about when he was saying that an error in the gene just wouldn't reproduce.
> Such an idea was too stupid to understand.


I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
"genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
(without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
even one species on the face of the earth?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
>
> I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
> cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
> "genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
> that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
> (without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
> shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
> evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
> showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
> even one species on the face of the earth?
>

There are no genetic "mistakes" that don't quickly lead to death.
Especially if such a "mistake" is a "break", whatever that means. If
that refers to a break in a chromosome the result would be random fusion
of DNA ends, which leads to cancer, certainly not to alternate sexual
preference. As usual, Kunich doesn't know what he's talking about. He's
like the Peter Pan of RBR retards.
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> You do understand the difference, don't you?


RBR meme alert!
"I know how to spell non-sequitur, dammit!"


--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email protected]
 
Stu Fleming <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> > Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> > You do understand the difference, don't you?

>
> RBR meme alert!
> "I know how to spell non-sequitur, dammit!"


Sorry about a typo - I posted it just after a 5 hour drive. :)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:

> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:


> > Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
> > somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.

>
> Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
> quickly!


It's a pretty standard pattern. First he tries to act like the other person
in the discussion is stupid (e.g. "Real historian, aren't you?"), then he starts
wildly building strawmen, then he finishes with homosexual references. Because
anyone who disagrees with Tom must surely be a **** of the worst sort. Of
course, most of his "data" on homosexuality is taken from seriously suspect
sources, like Paul Cameron (booted out of the APA) or Don Boys. Or, more
correctly, plagiarized from those sources:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/78255f77a2ea183f?hl=en&

Oh well, what else would you expect from am guy who seems to worship at the
alter of Fred Phelps?

Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
mention penises so frequently.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a
> > > queer somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past,
> > > he'll do it again.

> > Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
> > quickly!

>
> It's a pretty standard pattern.
> <snip>
> Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
> mention penises so frequently.


I don't think Sigmund Freud would have thought it was strange, but
rather the basis for a diagnosis! :)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Kyle Legate wrote:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>> I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
>> cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
>> "genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
>> that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
>> (without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
>> shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
>> evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
>> showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
>> even one species on the face of the earth?


There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
"genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.

Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
all "mistakes".
 
Konstantinos Koukopoulos wrote:
> There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
> corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
> the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
> offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
> attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
> compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
> drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
> "genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
> naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
> female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
> probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
> men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
> female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.


I'm sure this speculation is wrong. Increased female promiscuity does
not increase the reproductive ability of the female. She still would be
restricted to bearing one child after another at a minimum nine months
apart. In comparison a gene for attraction to females is much more
potent. A male with the promiscuous gene can father unlimited number of
children in the time one promiscuous female can bear one child. So the
"attraction to female" gene if there is such a thing would flourish,
while the "attraction to male" gene if there is such a thing would not.
 
Konstantinos Koukopoulos <[email protected]> writes:

> There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
> corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
> the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
> offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
> attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
> compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
> drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
> "genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
> naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
> female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
> probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
> men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
> female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.


How does this model explain lesbians?

> Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
> all "mistakes".


That's basically my objection to Kunich's posts - the use of loaded
language that has no basis (in this case, in biology).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>
>>>"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a
>>>>queer somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past,
>>>>he'll do it again.
>>>
>>>Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
>>>quickly!

>>
>> It's a pretty standard pattern.
>><snip>
>> Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
>>mention penises so frequently.

>
>
> I don't think Sigmund Freud would have thought it was strange, but
> rather the basis for a diagnosis! :)
>

Envy?
 
Konstantinos Koukopoulos wrote:
>
> There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
> corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
> the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
> offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
> attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
> compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
> drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
> "genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
> naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
> female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
> probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
> men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
> female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.
>

That's a nice theory, but there's no correlation between being gay and
being part of a large brood, as this speculation would seem to apply.
Rather, a different theory states that homosexuality may arise via the
timing of various hormonal cues present during embryonic development.
These hormones help to coordinate features of development, including
aspects of the brain that identify us as psychologically male or female.
By this hypothesis homosexuality is not due to a protein-coding
genetic component, but an epigenetic component, discrete regions of the
genome that don't encode a gene product, but direct the timing, spatial
resolution and amplitude of gene expression.

A link to an abstract: http://tinyurl.com/ak488
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Sorry I don't see it in there (which is possibly why someone called
>> > Richard Burton "suggests" it has something to do with it, as opposed
>> > to "stating" that it does). The references are just too vague.

>>
>> That must be why Wahabis commonly execute homosexuals in the public
>> squares
>> in Arabia.

>
> Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> You do understand the difference, don't you?


I hate to point this out to someone so well versed as yourself, but Muslims
don't use ONLY the Koran as their total law.

> If you want to start a discussion about how "common" it is, however,
> you can start with some hard data - average number of executions per
> year. Surely that should be a matter of public record.


Why don't you look it up if you're interested?

> My real name backwards: tihS piD
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> In short Mohammed said: ""Kill the one that is doing it and also kill
>> >> the
>> >> one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive
>> >> partners in gay sexual intercourse) "
>> >
>> > Where? We were talking about the Koran specifically, not everything
>> > Mohammed might have said.

>>
>> Bill, if you knew anything about Islam you'd know that they don't use the
>> Koran as their only source for Muslim law. But plainly you don't.

>
> As I said, the post I replied to specifically mentioned the Koran. Perhaps
> you'd make less of a fool of yourself if you'd learn to read with some
> minimal comprehension.


There you have it from Zaumen - dead men tell no tales.
 
"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>> I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
>> cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
>> "genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
>> that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
>> (without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
>> shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
>> evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
>> showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
>> even one species on the face of the earth?
>>

> There are no genetic "mistakes" that don't quickly lead to death.


Perhaps you can tell that to those whose genetics were manipulated in the
womb by German measles virus and were born deaf. Or maybe you can explain
why blue-eyed white cats are usuall deaf but not all are?
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
13
Views
427
Road Cycling
Alex Rodriguez
A