New Riding Buddy (heheh)



GeeDubb wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero"
> >> >
> >> guess Mavic quit making the 618's since they don't show up on their site
> >> and
> >> nothing on ebay.......

> >
> > Yes, that's right. I think JD used to talk about 618s a bit - maybe he
> > knows if Mavic makes a double-eyeletted rim that supercedes the 618...
> >
> > JD?
> >
> > E.P.
> >

>
> I probably should have asked him directly and will proceed to do just that.



Errr, tell *me* when you find out! I'd love to know.

Thanks,

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>> When you have no argument, make up a position for your opponent and
>>> refute it!


>> Said the Master. ("Just because it's OK with you that they do
>> that"...)


> Foot in mouth, much?


And yet in a separate post* you admitted you shouldn't have used those
words.

Confused, much?

* "OK, it was poor word choice on my part. Substitute the words "may be"
for "it's". I did not intend to ascribe to you a belief you didn't have."
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>
>>"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>GeeDubb wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>P.S. ISO vs. Centerlock? No big deal. There are adapters out there.
>>>>>And I run Avid mechanicals, and they do a great job in the wet.
>>>>
>>>>thanks. I have a set of centerlocks but just bought BB7's that need ISO.
>>>>I
>>>>didn't realize there were adapters so maybe I don't need a set of wheels
>>>>afterall!!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>DT sells 'em.
>>>
>>>And Greg's wheelset is exactly the same as mine.
>>>
>>>Great minds think alike. (?)
>>>
>>>E.P.
>>>

>>
>>the DTs are $30 each wheel but look like a better solution than the Problem
>>Solvers method at $18 each. I'll call around to the lbs's today and see if
>>I can get them locally. I can't wait to send my ass over the bars with the
>>new disc brakes........ and to actually ride in the wet w/o losing braking
>>ability.
>>
>>Where did you get your wheels? Greg?

>
>
> Dude! Buy? I *built* 'em! I used Brandt's book (The Bicycle Wheel)
> for a how-to. Sheldon Brown's website works for that, too.


I did the same, just using Sheldon's website. My 3rd pair using his
instructions.

>
> Bought 4 X618s and hubs on-line, went to a LBS for a 100-count box of
> 280mm (IIRC - I got the length by using the spoke length calculator on
> the DT website) DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes (I needed 64, but that
> would have cost more than a box of 100), and the guy there threw in two
> hand-fulls of brass nipples, gratis. I bought a Pedros spoke wrench to
> fit those nipples, and already had a truing stand (which you don't need
> - you can use the bike as a truing stand), and built the wheels in an
> evening over a football game and two BEvERages.


I got my parts from Cambria, I think, it's been awhile, and the per
spoke price was fine. I think I came up with 280/282s for spoke length
from another online calculator. I still don't have a truing stand.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.


Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
> want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
> Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
> Pure hypocrisy.


[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]

This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.

The problem with this logic is that there is something called
"reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.
Evolution does not care whether or not you believe in it. There are
many facts in biology which make fundamentalists outraged. The facts do
not care about this. They continue to be facts.

A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which, to
be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a vaccine
against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination would
weaken the message of abstinence.

If widespread vaccination of girls against HPV becomes the norm,
cervical cancer can be eradicated, saving thousands of lives. This is a
fact. If the vaccinations do not take place, women will continue to
suffer and die needlessly. That is also a fact. But the religious
zealots do not care about the facts. Like Brandi and Mark and many
others, they actively campaign to have facts about sexual biology --
science -- withheld not just from their own children, but from
everybody else's children too. This is not a simply rhetorical
distinction -- to the extent the nutjobs are successful, innocent girls
suffer and die.

This is tragic. I honestly do not know how the people campaigning
against HPV vaccination sleep at night.

Science does not give all ideas an equal playing field. Science is
designed to do exactly the opposite: the scientific process weeds out
incorrect ideas (like creationism) and strengthens correct ideas (like
evolution). Hypotheses which conform to the facts are retained, and
those which do not are discarded. Science does not treat everyone's
opinion equally. It shouldn't. This distinguishes science from both
politics and religion: democratic politics demands that everyone be
allowed to speak their opinion. Religious tolerance demands that each
of us allow the other to envision God as he wishes. Science need not,
and should not, treat all opinions equally.

Not everything which is believed to be true in science at any given
time is in fact true. Some currently held scientific ideas will
eventually be discovered to be wrong. If this were not so, science
would cease to function, because it would produce no new ideas. This
does not mean, as fundamentalists would have you believe, that all
ideas in science are equally open to criticism. It does not mean that
every theory of, for example, the origin of the universe deserves equal
consideration. Some things are simply true, and science would be
wasting its time debating things which are known to be true.

Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons. Citizens of a free,
democratic society have a right to access the truth about the world.
This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the Big Bang.
Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to make the
facts about these things available to everyone, including your
children. Even if you don't like it.

And I use brass nipples exclusively.

CC
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I think your "fear and loathing" of supposed Fundies is just like
>>>>>the anti-helmet people's irrational feelings re. pro-lid folks.
>>>>>Paranoia just makes ya (univeral ya) nuts...
>>>
>>>>I don't fear the people - I fear their actions. They wish to impose
>>>>their beliefs on me, control my actions, and attain and retain power
>>>>in that manner. Just because it's OK with you that they do that
>>>
>>>Straw man. (Hint: I don't accept your premise. No one's trying to
>>>impose any beliefs on me, nor control my actions.)

>>
>>Removing my choice of reading materials from the library is not
>>control? Imposing their style of worship (prayer at every turn, in
>>every public place) is not control? Forcing the public to pay for
>>their religious icons is not control?

>
>
> Oh come on. How much "artwork" with Jesus covered in excrement (or the
> like) is funded with public money?
>


Is anyone forcing you to view Serrano's or Mapplethorpe's work? No.
You have choice. But you would have a library remove a work from their
shelves. Freedom vs oppression.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>
> >>> When you have no argument, make up a position for your opponent and
> >>> refute it!

>
> >> Said the Master. ("Just because it's OK with you that they do
> >> that"...)

>
> > Foot in mouth, much?

>
> And yet in a separate post* you admitted you shouldn't have used those
> words.
>
> Confused, much?
>
> * "OK, it was poor word choice on my part. Substitute the words "may be"
> for "it's". I did not intend to ascribe to you a belief you didn't have."


Ahh, so you actually got the point, then.

Good. All is not lost; you *can* assimilate new ideas.

And here I was worried...

E.P.
 
"Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
> while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
> critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.
>
>
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
>> want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
>> Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
>> Pure hypocrisy.

>
> [...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
>
> This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
> fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
> you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
> equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
>
> The problem with this logic is that there is something called
> "reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
> science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
> famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
> evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
> fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.
> Evolution does not care whether or not you believe in it. There are
> many facts in biology which make fundamentalists outraged. The facts do
> not care about this. They continue to be facts.
>
> A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
> for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
> in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
> facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which, to
> be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
> activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
> having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
> issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
> against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a vaccine
> against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination would
> weaken the message of abstinence.
>
> If widespread vaccination of girls against HPV becomes the norm,
> cervical cancer can be eradicated, saving thousands of lives. This is a
> fact. If the vaccinations do not take place, women will continue to
> suffer and die needlessly. That is also a fact. But the religious
> zealots do not care about the facts. Like Brandi and Mark and many
> others, they actively campaign to have facts about sexual biology --
> science -- withheld not just from their own children, but from
> everybody else's children too. This is not a simply rhetorical
> distinction -- to the extent the nutjobs are successful, innocent girls
> suffer and die.
>
> This is tragic. I honestly do not know how the people campaigning
> against HPV vaccination sleep at night.
>
> Science does not give all ideas an equal playing field. Science is
> designed to do exactly the opposite: the scientific process weeds out
> incorrect ideas (like creationism) and strengthens correct ideas (like
> evolution). Hypotheses which conform to the facts are retained, and
> those which do not are discarded. Science does not treat everyone's
> opinion equally. It shouldn't. This distinguishes science from both
> politics and religion: democratic politics demands that everyone be
> allowed to speak their opinion. Religious tolerance demands that each
> of us allow the other to envision God as he wishes. Science need not,
> and should not, treat all opinions equally.
>
> Not everything which is believed to be true in science at any given
> time is in fact true. Some currently held scientific ideas will
> eventually be discovered to be wrong. If this were not so, science
> would cease to function, because it would produce no new ideas. This
> does not mean, as fundamentalists would have you believe, that all
> ideas in science are equally open to criticism. It does not mean that
> every theory of, for example, the origin of the universe deserves equal
> consideration. Some things are simply true, and science would be
> wasting its time debating things which are known to be true.
>
> Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
> suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons. Citizens of a free,
> democratic society have a right to access the truth about the world.
> This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the Big Bang.
> Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to make the
> facts about these things available to everyone, including your
> children. Even if you don't like it.
>
> And I use brass nipples exclusively.
>
> CC
>


well thought and written.

and why exclusively brass nipples?

Gary
 
GeeDubb wrote:
> "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
> > while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
> > critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.
> >
> >
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >> Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
> >> want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
> >> Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
> >> Pure hypocrisy.

> >
> > [...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
> >
> > This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
> > fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
> > you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
> > equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
> >
> > The problem with this logic is that there is something called
> > "reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
> > science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
> > famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
> > evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
> > Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
> > fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.
> > Evolution does not care whether or not you believe in it. There are
> > many facts in biology which make fundamentalists outraged. The facts do
> > not care about this. They continue to be facts.
> >
> > A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
> > for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
> > in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
> > facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which, to
> > be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
> > activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
> > having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
> > issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
> > against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a vaccine
> > against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination would
> > weaken the message of abstinence.
> >
> > If widespread vaccination of girls against HPV becomes the norm,
> > cervical cancer can be eradicated, saving thousands of lives. This is a
> > fact. If the vaccinations do not take place, women will continue to
> > suffer and die needlessly. That is also a fact. But the religious
> > zealots do not care about the facts. Like Brandi and Mark and many
> > others, they actively campaign to have facts about sexual biology --
> > science -- withheld not just from their own children, but from
> > everybody else's children too. This is not a simply rhetorical
> > distinction -- to the extent the nutjobs are successful, innocent girls
> > suffer and die.
> >
> > This is tragic. I honestly do not know how the people campaigning
> > against HPV vaccination sleep at night.
> >
> > Science does not give all ideas an equal playing field. Science is
> > designed to do exactly the opposite: the scientific process weeds out
> > incorrect ideas (like creationism) and strengthens correct ideas (like
> > evolution). Hypotheses which conform to the facts are retained, and
> > those which do not are discarded. Science does not treat everyone's
> > opinion equally. It shouldn't. This distinguishes science from both
> > politics and religion: democratic politics demands that everyone be
> > allowed to speak their opinion. Religious tolerance demands that each
> > of us allow the other to envision God as he wishes. Science need not,
> > and should not, treat all opinions equally.
> >
> > Not everything which is believed to be true in science at any given
> > time is in fact true. Some currently held scientific ideas will
> > eventually be discovered to be wrong. If this were not so, science
> > would cease to function, because it would produce no new ideas. This
> > does not mean, as fundamentalists would have you believe, that all
> > ideas in science are equally open to criticism. It does not mean that
> > every theory of, for example, the origin of the universe deserves equal
> > consideration. Some things are simply true, and science would be
> > wasting its time debating things which are known to be true.
> >
> > Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
> > suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons. Citizens of a free,
> > democratic society have a right to access the truth about the world.
> > This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the Big Bang.
> > Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to make the
> > facts about these things available to everyone, including your
> > children. Even if you don't like it.
> >
> > And I use brass nipples exclusively.
> >
> > CC
> >

>
> well thought and written.
>
> and why exclusively brass nipples?


They stand up to tensioning work better without rounding the flats with
the spoke wrench, the threads don't gall like Al nipples' threads (on
SS spoke threads, that is.)

And the weight savings with Al nipples is trivial.

E.P.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote

>>

>
> Did you see that pic recently of a sun flare with a little "scale insert"
> of the earth to show the relative size? The earth was smaller than the
> /tip/ of the thing. (And yes, they say the sun is getting hotter. Must
> be our fault.)
>


Correction, not our fault, George Bush's fault. :<)
 
G.T. wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think your "fear and loathing" of supposed Fundies is just like
>>>>>> the anti-helmet people's irrational feelings re. pro-lid folks.
>>>>>> Paranoia just makes ya (univeral ya) nuts...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't fear the people - I fear their actions. They wish to
>>>>> impose their beliefs on me, control my actions, and attain and
>>>>> retain power in that manner. Just because it's OK with you that
>>>>> they do that
>>>>
>>>> Straw man. (Hint: I don't accept your premise. No one's trying
>>>> to impose any beliefs on me, nor control my actions.)
>>>
>>> Removing my choice of reading materials from the library is not
>>> control? Imposing their style of worship (prayer at every turn, in
>>> every public place) is not control? Forcing the public to pay for
>>> their religious icons is not control?

>>
>>
>> Oh come on. How much "artwork" with Jesus covered in excrement (or
>> the like) is funded with public money?
>>

>
> Is anyone forcing you to view Serrano's or Mapplethorpe's work? No.
> You have choice.


I don't have a choice about my tax money supporting it/them, however.

> But you would have a library remove a work from
> their shelves.


No I wouldn't! Stop making false assumptions/accusations. I just don't
/fear/ some Right-to-Lifer running for some Town Council office in some tiny
town somewhere saying some stuff. Hell, she didn't even come close to
getting elected; and even if she had, she'd have been one small voice among
many larger ones (just like her views).

I didn't /fear/ Cynthia McKinney's overt anti-Semitism and wacky 9-11
conspiracy theories, either. One small (albeit shrill) voice among many
larger ones.

> Freedom vs oppression.


Indeed. I cherish the former, and trust it to protect me from the latter
(and it does).
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>
>> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a
>> good disc wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?

>
> Real men still use V-brakes.
>


that's what i keep telling myself.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you have no argument, make up a position for your opponent
>>>>> and refute it!

>>
>>>> Said the Master. ("Just because it's OK with you that they do
>>>> that"...)

>>
>>> Foot in mouth, much?

>>
>> And yet in a separate post* you admitted you shouldn't have used
>> those words.
>>
>> Confused, much?


Quoting Ed's other post:

>> * "OK, it was poor word choice on my part. Substitute the words
>> "may be" for "it's". I did not intend to ascribe to you a belief
>> you didn't have."


End Quote.

> Ahh, so you actually got the point, then.
>
> Good. All is not lost; you *can* assimilate new ideas.
>
> And here I was worried...


I'll just leave this as is. It shows you for what you are and do better
than any flowery description I could concoct.

Bravo.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>
>>"Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>And I use brass nipples exclusively.
>>>
>>>CC
>>>

>>
>>well thought and written.
>>
>>and why exclusively brass nipples?

>
>
> They stand up to tensioning work better without rounding the flats with
> the spoke wrench, the threads don't gall like Al nipples' threads (on
> SS spoke threads, that is.)
>
> And the weight savings with Al nipples is trivial.
>


An even bigger reason is that with disc brakes one can use wheels for
years and years without the sidewalls wearing through. After a few
years alloy nipples will bond to stainless steel spokes, and they will
also corrode until one day when you least expect it you will be riding
along and 7 or 10 or 15 or more nipples will just explode with a cute
little ping. It's happened to every alloy nippled wheel I've had that
has survived more than 3 or 4 years, basically rim-braked wheels that
I've pulled off, stored for awhile, and put back on bikes. Now with no
rim-brakes wearing the sidewalls down the life of the rim will outlast
the life of alloy nipples and they usually fail catastrophically.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
cc wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>
>>> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a
>>> good disc wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?

>>
>>
>> Real men still use V-brakes.

>
>
> that's what i keep telling myself.


I still use v-brakes (thumps chest). But is it OK that I also have disc
brakes on another bike, or does that cancel out my v-brake use?

Matt
 
MattB wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about we get back on the subject of mountain biking. What's a
>>>> good disc wheelset (for a 200 pounder)to buy?
>>>
>>>
>>> Real men still use V-brakes.

>>
>>
>> that's what i keep telling myself.

>
> I still use v-brakes (thumps chest). But is it OK that I also have
> disc brakes on another bike, or does that cancel out my v-brake use?


You're half-real?
 
Corvus Corvax wrote:
> This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
> while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
> critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into
> electrons.
>
>
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
>> want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
>> Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
>> Pure hypocrisy.

>
> [...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
>
> This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
> fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief
> system you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held
> to be on equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
>
> The problem with this logic is that there is something called
> "reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
> science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
> famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
> evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
> fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.
> Evolution does not care whether or not you believe in it. There are
> many facts in biology which make fundamentalists outraged. The facts
> do not care about this. They continue to be facts.
>
> A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
> for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
> in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
> facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which,
> to be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
> activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
> having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
> issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
> against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a
> vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination
> would weaken the message of abstinence.
>
> If widespread vaccination of girls against HPV becomes the norm,
> cervical cancer can be eradicated, saving thousands of lives. This is
> a fact. If the vaccinations do not take place, women will continue to
> suffer and die needlessly. That is also a fact. But the religious
> zealots do not care about the facts. Like Brandi and Mark and many
> others, they actively campaign to have facts about sexual biology --
> science -- withheld not just from their own children, but from
> everybody else's children too. This is not a simply rhetorical
> distinction -- to the extent the nutjobs are successful, innocent
> girls suffer and die.
>
> This is tragic. I honestly do not know how the people campaigning
> against HPV vaccination sleep at night.
>
> Science does not give all ideas an equal playing field. Science is
> designed to do exactly the opposite: the scientific process weeds out
> incorrect ideas (like creationism) and strengthens correct ideas (like
> evolution). Hypotheses which conform to the facts are retained, and
> those which do not are discarded. Science does not treat everyone's
> opinion equally. It shouldn't. This distinguishes science from both
> politics and religion: democratic politics demands that everyone be
> allowed to speak their opinion. Religious tolerance demands that each
> of us allow the other to envision God as he wishes. Science need not,
> and should not, treat all opinions equally.
>
> Not everything which is believed to be true in science at any given
> time is in fact true. Some currently held scientific ideas will
> eventually be discovered to be wrong. If this were not so, science
> would cease to function, because it would produce no new ideas. This
> does not mean, as fundamentalists would have you believe, that all
> ideas in science are equally open to criticism. It does not mean that
> every theory of, for example, the origin of the universe deserves
> equal consideration. Some things are simply true, and science would be
> wasting its time debating things which are known to be true.
>
> Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
> suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons. Citizens of a
> free, democratic society have a right to access the truth about the
> world. This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the
> Big Bang. Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to
> make the facts about these things available to everyone, including
> your children. Even if you don't like it.
>
> And I use brass nipples exclusively.


I was gonna say. Hope you paid a /little/ attention to the road/path/trail
on your ride.

Bill "I usually think of Betty & Veronica's boobs" S.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> When you have no argument, make up a position for your opponent
> >>>>> and refute it!
> >>
> >>>> Said the Master. ("Just because it's OK with you that they do
> >>>> that"...)
> >>
> >>> Foot in mouth, much?
> >>
> >> And yet in a separate post* you admitted you shouldn't have used
> >> those words.
> >>
> >> Confused, much?

>
> Quoting Ed's other post:
>
> >> * "OK, it was poor word choice on my part. Substitute the words
> >> "may be" for "it's". I did not intend to ascribe to you a belief
> >> you didn't have."

>
> End Quote.
>
> > Ahh, so you actually got the point, then.
> >
> > Good. All is not lost; you *can* assimilate new ideas.
> >
> > And here I was worried...

>
> I'll just leave this as is. It shows you for what you are and do better
> than any flowery description I could concoct.


Ooops, looks like I typed too soon.

I guess you really *didn't* get the point.

<Emily Littella>

Never mind.

</Emily Littella>

E.P.
 
di wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>

>>Did you see that pic recently of a sun flare with a little "scale insert"
>>of the earth to show the relative size? The earth was smaller than the
>>/tip/ of the thing. (And yes, they say the sun is getting hotter. Must
>>be our fault.)
>>

>
>
> Correction, not our fault, George Bush's fault. :<)
>
>


Uh, actually it's modern civilization's fault the _Earth_ is getting
hotter. The sun getting hotter is just what stars do throughout their
lifetimes.
George Bush hasn't helped any and as much as I like it to be his fault,
he's just denying global warming and not acting to help alleviate it. He
didn't cause it.

If we want to blame someone, maybe Henry Ford should take the fall.

Matt
 
G.T. wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > GeeDubb wrote:
> >
> >>"Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>And I use brass nipples exclusively.
> >>>
> >>>CC
> >>>
> >>
> >>well thought and written.
> >>
> >>and why exclusively brass nipples?

> >
> >
> > They stand up to tensioning work better without rounding the flats with
> > the spoke wrench, the threads don't gall like Al nipples' threads (on
> > SS spoke threads, that is.)
> >
> > And the weight savings with Al nipples is trivial.
> >

>
> An even bigger reason is that with disc brakes one can use wheels for
> years and years without the sidewalls wearing through. After a few
> years alloy nipples will bond to stainless steel spokes, and they will
> also corrode until one day when you least expect it you will be riding
> along and 7 or 10 or 15 or more nipples will just explode with a cute
> little ping. It's happened to every alloy nippled wheel I've had that
> has survived more than 3 or 4 years, basically rim-braked wheels that
> I've pulled off, stored for awhile, and put back on bikes. Now with no
> rim-brakes wearing the sidewalls down the life of the rim will outlast
> the life of alloy nipples and they usually fail catastrophically.


Bonus!

I hadn't even thought of that one. My sidewalls had gone away so
quickly that I never had this happen before. Riding in the wet (even
on paved stuff) demolishes rims in a big hurry.

E.P.
 
MattB wrote:
> di wrote:
> > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
> >
> >>Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >>>"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>
> >>Did you see that pic recently of a sun flare with a little "scale insert"
> >>of the earth to show the relative size? The earth was smaller than the
> >>/tip/ of the thing. (And yes, they say the sun is getting hotter. Must
> >>be our fault.)
> >>

> >
> >
> > Correction, not our fault, George Bush's fault. :<)
> >
> >

>
> Uh, actually it's modern civilization's fault the _Earth_ is getting
> hotter. The sun getting hotter is just what stars do throughout their
> lifetimes.
> George Bush hasn't helped any and as much as I like it to be his fault,
> he's just denying global warming and not acting to help alleviate it. He
> didn't cause it.
>
> If we want to blame someone, maybe Henry Ford should take the fall.



The Brits. They invented the Industrial Revolution.

Bastards.

E.P.