Re: Snaping Spokes

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Werehatrack, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    three years?

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
    Tags:


  2. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:13:49 -0600, Werehatrack
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >three years?


    Dear Werehatrack,

    He probably just began browsing old threads and had a
    perfectly normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth
    theory.

    It really is hard for most of us to remember how many eyes
    bulged out in anger and disbelief when we first read Jobst's
    explanation of how a pre-tensioned wheel works--

    Stands on the lower spokes? Fer chrissakes, cut a lower
    spoke on a bare wheel and it falls out!

    --because unlike Jobst, most of us haven't really thought
    about it and need to hear "pre-tensioned" about a hundred
    times before we stop boggling at the notion that a wheel
    could effectively stand on its lower spokes with no
    significant increase in the upper spokes, even if they were
    all made of kevlar string--

    Stand on a string? What have you been smoking?

    --with enough pre-tension.

    If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it
    reminds me of how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle
    Wheel" and wasn't bright enough to follow his first few
    pages.

    Carl Fogel
     
  3. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:13:49 -0600, Werehatrack
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >three years?


    Dear Werehatrack,

    He probably just began browsing old threads and had a
    perfectly normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth
    theory.

    It really is hard for most of us to remember how many eyes
    bulged out in anger and disbelief when we first read Jobst's
    explanation of how a pre-tensioned wheel works--

    Stands on the lower spokes? Fer chrissakes, cut a lower
    spoke on a bare wheel and it falls out!

    --because unlike Jobst, most of us haven't really thought
    about it and need to hear "pre-tensioned" about a hundred
    times before we stop boggling at the notion that a wheel
    could effectively stand on its lower spokes with no
    significant increase in the upper spokes, even if they were
    all made of kevlar string--

    Stand on a string? What have you been smoking?

    --with enough pre-tension.

    If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it
    reminds me of how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle
    Wheel" and wasn't bright enough to follow his first few
    pages.

    Carl Fogel
     
  4. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:25:05 -0700, [email protected] may have
    said:

    >On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:13:49 -0600, Werehatrack
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >>three years?

    >
    >Dear Werehatrack,
    >
    >He probably just began browsing old threads and had a
    >perfectly normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth
    >theory.


    It might have been a good idea for him to have read enough of it to
    get a little more of a clue about the subjects before presenting
    himself as a target for a game of whack-a-mole though.

    (I will note that Jobst did not disappoint me with *his* response,
    though I was a bit surprised that like me, he didn't check the
    reference line in the headers and backtrack to discover the staleness
    of the thread before posting the initial reply. Beyond that, however,
    he was in fine form.)

    >If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it
    >reminds me of how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle
    >Wheel" and wasn't bright enough to follow his first few
    >pages.


    As long as we don't end up with Yet Another Endless Rantfest about a
    subject whose corpse was cremated and ashes scattered long ago, yes,
    it's instructive to have such things brought up now and then...and for
    those of us who are not presented with the opportunity to shred a
    target often enough, it can provide some vicarious gratification to
    see a master at work at that task.

    (I will relate in passing that a different person with superficially
    similar predilections was briefly the topic of conversation over
    dinner recently, and it was posted that the term which most succintly
    describes Harlan Ellison in social situations is "egoterrorist".
    Jobst, however, has more reason for his responses, so I do not believe
    the term is applicable in his case.)




    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  5. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman Guest

    HE the SF author? Will you explain, by e-mail if you wish?


    "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:25:05 -0700, [email protected] may have
    > said:
    >
    >>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:13:49 -0600, Werehatrack
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >>>three years?

    >>
    >>Dear Werehatrack,
    >>
    >>He probably just began browsing old threads and had a
    >>perfectly normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth
    >>theory.

    >
    > It might have been a good idea for him to have read enough of it to
    > get a little more of a clue about the subjects before presenting
    > himself as a target for a game of whack-a-mole though.
    >
    > (I will note that Jobst did not disappoint me with *his* response,
    > though I was a bit surprised that like me, he didn't check the
    > reference line in the headers and backtrack to discover the staleness
    > of the thread before posting the initial reply. Beyond that, however,
    > he was in fine form.)
    >
    >>If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it
    >>reminds me of how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle
    >>Wheel" and wasn't bright enough to follow his first few
    >>pages.

    >
    > As long as we don't end up with Yet Another Endless Rantfest about a
    > subject whose corpse was cremated and ashes scattered long ago, yes,
    > it's instructive to have such things brought up now and then...and for
    > those of us who are not presented with the opportunity to shred a
    > target often enough, it can provide some vicarious gratification to
    > see a master at work at that task.
    >
    > (I will relate in passing that a different person with superficially
    > similar predilections was briefly the topic of conversation over
    > dinner recently, and it was posted that the term which most succintly
    > describes Harlan Ellison in social situations is "egoterrorist".
    > Jobst, however, has more reason for his responses, so I do not believe
    > the term is applicable in his case.)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    > Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    > Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  6. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:39:32 -0500, "Doug Huffman"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    >"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> (I will relate in passing that a different person with superficially
    >> similar predilections was briefly the topic of conversation over
    >> dinner recently, and it was posited that the term which most succintly
    >> describes Harlan Ellison in social situations is "egoterrorist".
    >> Jobst, however, has more reason for his responses, so I do not believe
    >> the term is applicable in his case.)


    >HE the SF author? Will you explain, by e-mail if you wish?


    Harlan Ellison, if you've never met him, is not one to mince words or
    to let the opportunity to aggrandize himself of belittle others pass
    unused. It has been said, by those who have had to spend more time
    than they would like in his presence, that it is a miracle that he has
    survived this long...or perhaps it's proof of the perversity of the
    universe.

    Jobst Brandt, for all that he can be insulting, does not do it without
    reason, however tenuous the rationale might be. Ellison does.




    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  7. RonSonic

    RonSonic Guest

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:25:05 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:13:49 -0600, Werehatrack
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >>three years?

    >
    >Dear Werehatrack,
    >
    >He probably just began browsing old threads and had a
    >perfectly normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth
    >theory.
    >
    >It really is hard for most of us to remember how many eyes
    >bulged out in anger and disbelief when we first read Jobst's
    >explanation of how a pre-tensioned wheel works--
    >
    >Stands on the lower spokes? Fer chrissakes, cut a lower
    >spoke on a bare wheel and it falls out!
    >
    >--because unlike Jobst, most of us haven't really thought
    >about it and need to hear "pre-tensioned" about a hundred
    >times before we stop boggling at the notion that a wheel
    >could effectively stand on its lower spokes with no
    >significant increase in the upper spokes, even if they were
    >all made of kevlar string--
    >
    >Stand on a string? What have you been smoking?
    >
    >--with enough pre-tension.
    >
    >If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it
    >reminds me of how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle
    >Wheel" and wasn't bright enough to follow his first few
    >pages.
    >
    >Carl Fogel


    I'm glad to see such a post because I have a cruel sense of humor that delights
    when a highrise falcon takes out a popcorn-fatted pigeon in mid feeding.

    This cross-toed, head-bobbing newbie is about to leave in a cloud of dust and
    feathers.

    Oh, sure whatsisbeam is gonna weigh in and make it all tedious and humorless
    before it's over, but until then I watch.

    Ron
     
  8. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:04:46 GMT, RonSonic <[email protected]>
    may have said:

    >Oh, sure whatsisbeam is gonna weigh in and make it all tedious and humorless
    >before it's over, but until then I watch.


    The dampening effects can be minimized by the judicious application of
    a little Ctrl-K, I've found.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  9. Carl Fogel writes:

    >> And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    >> three years?


    > He probably just began browsing old threads and had a perfectly
    > normal flat-earth reaction to Jobst's round-earth theory.


    > It really is hard for most of us to remember how many eyes bulged
    > out in anger and disbelief when we first read Jobst's explanation of
    > how a pre-tensioned wheel works--


    > Stands on the lower spokes? Fer chrissakes, cut a lower spoke on a
    > bare wheel and it falls out!


    > --because unlike Jobst, most of us haven't really thought about it
    > and need to hear "pre-tensioned" about a hundred times before we
    > stop boggling at the notion that a wheel could effectively stand on
    > its lower spokes with no significant increase in the upper spokes,
    > even if they were all made of Kevlar string--


    > Stand on a string? What have you been smoking?


    > --with enough pre-tension.


    > If anything, I'm pleased to see such a post because it reminds me of
    > how I felt when I first looked at "The Bicycle Wheel" and wasn't
    > bright enough to follow his first few pages.


    Thanks, that was a generous assessment and coming from a critic such
    as you it has more substance than others who might have risen to the
    occasion. As you see, I had little sympathy for Mr. ztwnyer and his
    brash attack while you found time to explain the matter. Having tried
    that approach over the years, I have given up for writers who use the
    insulting smartass tone in their first approach to the subject.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email protected]
     
  10. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Werehatrack <[email protected]> writes:

    > And why on earth are you resurrecting a thread that's been dead for
    > three years?


    I wondered about that myself, the distinctive mispeling of the thread
    being the giveaway.
     
  11. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Carl Fogel wrote:

    > ...
    > Most of us just need to take lessons in good manners from
    > posters like Dianne, Sheldon, and Andrew.


    Not trying to derive the motives of other posters, then accusing them of
    lying when you guess wrong would be a good start.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Earth
     
Loading...
Loading...