RailBikes



B

Bill Patterson

Guest
I know nothing about railbikes. Out town has railroad tracks running north and south. The railroads
are slowing down and may give up their right of ways. Tracks and right of ways are an incredible
asset for future public transport. Most cities lost all trolley right of ways in the 40's and 50's.

I may try and start a railbike company just to keep the car lobby from tearing up the tracks.
Therefore, the interest in railbikes.

meb wrote:
> Professor, has there ever ben a fwd railbike?
>
>
>
> --
>
>

--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]
 
B

B a r r y

Guest
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:53:43 GMT, Bill Patterson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I may try and start a railbike company just to keep the car lobby from tearing up the tracks.
>Therefore, the interest in railbikes.
>

Why not hook up with The National Rails to Trails foundation? They may be able to help get the
access rights to the right of way.

Barry
 
B

Bill Patterson

Guest
I want to save the rails. Don't care about ripping them up to make bike trails.

B a r r y wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:53:43 GMT, Bill Patterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I may try and start a railbike company just to keep the car lobby from tearing up the tracks.
>>Therefore, the interest in railbikes.
>>
>
>
> Why not hook up with The National Rails to Trails foundation? They may be able to help get the
> access rights to the right of way.
>
> Barry

--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:10:21 GMT, Bill Patterson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I want to save the rails. Don't care about ripping them up to make bike trails.

outlaw top-posting!

What would a rail-bike do? The image in mind is of a railroad track-inspection vehicle, with pedals
instead of the lever for propulsion.....

the philippine National Railroad occasionally has to impound improvised private rail carraiges and
burn them in big piles; locals build rail cars and push them on the track to get from point A to
point B. And then they collide with freight trains....

-Luigi
 
B

Bill Patterson

Guest
Luigi,

Great to hear from our brothers in the Philippines. I visited in 1967, love the place. I still try
to get to the chicken fights.

What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having to
scroll down through other/old replies.

In the US we have many miles of abandoned railroad track. It is lawful to ride on the old
unused track.

Bill
--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"Bill Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having to
> scroll down through other/old replies.

Oy.

Please see, on "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet" the article entitled, "What is Top-Posting
and why is it considered bad?" here: http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html

If you still don't get it, consider the following classic:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
B: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
C: Top-posting.
D: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Email me re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)
 
M

Mark Leuck

Guest
Since I already know the subject I'd rather not see it a zillion times during the thread but instead
like to see the replies, if it annoys some welp sorry but I'm more annoyed scrolling down to see a
one line reply

"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s01...
> "Bill Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having
> > to scroll down through other/old replies.
>
> Oy.
>
> Please see, on "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet" the article entitled, "What is Top-
> Posting and why is it considered bad?" here:
> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
>
> If you still don't get it, consider the following classic:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
>
> Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm Email me re: the
> new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)

Since I already know the subject I'd rather not see it a zillion times during the thread but instead
like to see the replies, if it annoys some welp sorry but I'm more annoyed scrolling down to see a
one line reply

(top and bottom posted to annoy/please both crowds)
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Mark Leuck <[email protected]> wrote:
: Since I already know the subject I'd rather not see it a zillion times during the thread but
: instead like to see the replies, if it annoys some welp sorry but I'm more annoyed scrolling down
: to see a one line reply
:
: (top and bottom posted to annoy/please both crowds)

it also helps to trim your posts. in fact that's more important than where you chose to place
your response.
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
M

Mikael Seierup

Guest
"Mark Leuck" skrev...
> Since I already know the subject I'd rather not see it a zillion times during the thread but
> instead like to see the replies, if it annoys some welp sorry but I'm more annoyed scrolling down
> to see a one line reply

Well if people cut the stuff they are not replying to there would be no scrolling. Seems silly to
drag several pages of useless text along in a thread. The megaposts that "swell" to 10-15 kb. (Yea,
yea I know. ;-) )

Anyway no big deal really.

Cheers Mikael
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s01...
> "Bill Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having
> > to scroll down through other/old replies.
>
> Oy.
>
> Please see, on "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet" the article entitled, "What is Top-
> Posting and why is it considered bad?" here:
> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
>
> If you still don't get it, consider the following classic:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

I stick to the convention, but I think it's a really bad one. Top posting is so much easier to read.
Many other fora use a top posting convention, I wish these bike NG's would get with it, bottom
posting is so retro.
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:58:59 GMT, Bill Patterson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having to
>scroll down through other/old replies.

If you don't want to scroll through everybody else's replies, then please just delete everything
that *isn't* your intended message. There are still a lot of people who are accessing usenet via dial-
up, and posting only a handful of lines at the top, whilst appending a lengthy exchange of several
dozen lines below wastes a great deal of bandwidth. This is generally a drag, and people hate you
for unnecessarily slowing them down.

>In the US we have many miles of abandoned railroad track. It is lawful to ride on the old
>unused track.

fair enough. how would you make the bike-car profitable?

-Luigi

>Bill
 
B

Bill Hole

Guest
Oy gevalt! This page is one person's opinion. You can agree or you can disagree, and I disagree.
When I'm reading news, I am usually reading through a whole thread, and when I open a new reply, I
want to read it, not have to scroll down through all the previous text to get to the words I want to
read. Yes, people should trim quoted text, but even when they do I find bottom posting irritating.

This is not the ignorant response of an "absolute beginner". I've been on Usenet for over a decade
and on other BBS's and online services for over 2 decades.

But the bottom line for me is that we each have our preferences, and it's silly to get into
religious wars over how we order our posts. Religious wars over bicycles are much more interesting.

Bill Hole

Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Bill Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having to
>>scroll down through other/old replies.
>
>
> Oy.
>
> Please see, on "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet" the article entitled, "What is Top-
> Posting and why is it considered bad?" here:
> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:57:55 GMT, "Peter Cole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I stick to the convention, but I think it's a really bad one. Top posting is so much easier to
>read. Many other fora use a top posting convention, I wish these bike NG's would get with it,
>bottom posting is so retro.
>

I think it's a good system. It brings latecomers up to speed, provides context, and encourages
precision in responses.

But what do I know--I'm still a fan of via moderna scholasticism.

-Luigi
 
S

Sticker Jim

Guest
Tomato, tomato. For people following the thread, they have access to the most recent text
contribution to the thread without having to scroll down. I don't really care which way people post
as there are far more annoying things people do on the net than top post. Also, it's merely a
recommendation and neither a rule nor a law. Additionally, when other people snip out extraneous
bits of previous posts for brevity, neither posting method makes any more or less sense.

Lastly, in letters and conversation, when someone comes along and picks up the conversation or
message, does each successive person recap the entire conversation before adding their input? No.
If bottom posting was so important, it would be a simple matter for the coders of usenet apps to
have them do that by default, which few do. This is the internet, and while certain things might be
"nice" to have like a standardize usenet posting method, I wouldn't bother holding my breath
waiting for it.

"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s01...
> "Bill Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What is top posting? If it means putting my post on top of the old stuff, guilty. I hate having
> > to scroll down through other/old replies.
>
> Oy.
>
> Please see, on "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet" the article entitled, "What is Top-
> Posting and why is it considered bad?" here:
> http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
>
> If you still don't get it, consider the following classic:
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
>
> Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm Email me re: the
> new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 05:12:03 GMT, "Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tomato, tomato. For people following the thread, they have access to the most recent text
>contribution to the thread without having to scroll down. I don't really care which way people post
>as there are far more annoying things people do on the net than top post. Also, it's merely a
>recommendation and neither a rule nor a law. Additionally, when other people snip out extraneous
>bits of previous posts for brevity, neither posting method makes any more or less sense.

But it reduces the amount of data that needs to be shunted around. If you're on a broadband
connection, it's not a big deal, but on a dial-up modem, especially under less than ideal
situations, it's a major hassle.

Top post if you must, but do us the favour of trimming the post as well. We never know if the spirit
will move you one day to intersperse a comment on a particular phrase--one of the benefits of the
quote-and-response system.

>
>Lastly, in letters and conversation, when someone comes along and picks up the conversation or
>message, does each successive person recap the entire conversation before adding their input? No.
>If bottom posting was so important, it would be a simple matter for the coders of usenet apps to
>have them do that by default, which few do. This is the internet, and while certain things might be
>"nice" to have like a standardize usenet posting method, I wouldn't bother holding my breath
>waiting for it.

Bite your tongue. Standards of behaviour are regulated by more than mere software. What would your
mother say?

-Luigi www.livejournal.com/users/ouij Photos, Rants, Raves
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Tomato, tomato.

There is a correct way to pronounce a word and an incorrect way. What ever gave you the idea that
you can just pronounce a word anyway you want. Language is a communal thing.

> For people following the thread, they have access to the most recent text contribution to the
> thread without having to scroll down.

No, you read down, not up. And just what part of the previous message are you responding to? So you
first have to read what is below to know what it is that you are responding to. But you do strike me
as the type that does everything ass backwards. You probably read from right to left too. And when
you read a book you begin at the ending and read to the beginning.

> I don't really care which way people post as there are far more annoying things people do on the
> net than top post.

Yes, but the rest of us do care. Who the hell are you to do things your own way? Since you don't
mind screwing everyone else, I guess we are free to screw you too. And I will take particular
delight in doing it!

> Also, it's merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.

It is not a recommendation you dolt! It is the PROPER way to do things. God! Here is an idiot who
strikes me as being barely literate and he is telling us that he can post anyway he wants. He does
not have a glimmer of a notion about the differences between sentences and paragraphs. He is unable
to organize his thoughts in a coherent manner. All he knows is that he can damn well post anyway he
wants to and the rest of us can like it or lump it. Have I got it about right? If I have, then you
are about on the level of a common criminal.

> Additionally, when other people snip out extraneous bits of previous posts for brevity, neither
> posting method makes any more or less sense.

That is precisely the one thing you do not know how to do at all and that is how to edit someone
else's posts. That is mainly because you do not know how to read and write either. Apparently one
sentence just follows another with never any break to distinguish one thought from another. But
maybe all your thoughts just run together that way too. Learn how to read, write and edit and
organize your thoughts before you presume to tell the rest of us anything about posting - you
blooming moron!

> Lastly, in letters and conversation, when someone comes along and picks up the conversation or
> message, does each successive person recap the entire conversation before adding their input? No.

Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. It all depends on what you are responding to in the
message. By the way, letters and conversation are two entirely different communication mediums and
have their own rules. I am sure you do not know how to talk to anyone either.

> If bottom posting was so important, it would be a simple matter for the coders of usenet apps to
> have them do that by default, which few do.

Bottom posting is important because that is the way the human mind works. But apparently not yours.
And you prove it every time you post. But maybe your mind works like a usenet application where
everything is on default, except the default is ass backwards and nothing is more important than
anything else. Everything is equal in your universe. Backwards, forwards, the beginning, the end,
the top, the bottom - what the hell difference does any of it make. We are just all children here
and no one knows anything about anything except this dummkopf who goes by the name of "Sticker Jim".

> This is the internet, and while certain things might be "nice" to have like a standardize usenet
> posting method, I wouldn't bother holding my breath waiting for it.

It is because of jerks like you that Usenet is as screwed up as it is. Either learn how to do things
the proper, accustomed, traditional way or get the hell lost. Life is hard enough for the rest of us
without having to put up with dunderheads like you who only know how to screw things up.

This moron does not even know how to name a subject thread. What the hell is [Slightly OT]
RailBikes? He should have named this thread: [OT] Idiot Wants to Know How to Post. Please Help Me!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota