rec.bicycles.tech - FAQ?

[Bill Westphal]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 1:07 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The main benefit is that cheaper bikes are better than they used to
>> > be, until you get to the bottom end stuff that you can buy at
>> > Target and Wal*Mart.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> On a dare in 2004, I bought a Fury Roadmaster from WalMart for under
>> $60 and rode it for 1200 miles:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ccc0c851499eebed
>
> I recall the adventure.
>
>> The only failure was a flat rear tire, which wasn't bad for a bicycle
>> sold for teenagers to ride around instead of 195-lb test riders
>> trying to do 20 mph over eight speed humps in the park.
>>
>> Three years later, the bike sells for just under $50:
>>
>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=1977659
>>
>> Here's an inflation calculator:
>>
>> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
>>
>> Today's $50 was worth $9.58 in 1970.
>
> There's an interesting perspective from a number of perspectives and not
> just the absurdly low prices of cheap bikes.
>
> In 1970, $50 to $100 was pretty much the per-person pay scale for bands
> playing in bars. In 2007, the per-person pay scale is about $50 to
> $100... or compared to the $1.50 per hour I was paid at my first job in
> 1973, which is $6.84 per hour now. Minimum wage was $1.60 in 1973, so I
> guess my Dad was breaking the law in paying me $0.10 less- but still it
> was effectively more than the minimum wage now!
>
> Some right wingers **** and moan about the minimum wage, not recognizing
> the screaming deal they are getting. The current minimum wage is a bit
> above half of what it was in 1968, when corrected for inflation!

There's an interesting and even somewhat scholarly article here on the
topic of relative prices.

http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/prices.htm

In 1970 my dad replaced his sturmey archer-based 3-sp Schwinn Traveler
that the me by then 12 years old had kept going for a number of years,
including replacing the rear hub with the same very rusty rim/spokes.

The 1970 5-sp Sears Chinese bike the cheapskate bought ($59.95 in '71
according to the article) was the sorriest piece of **** you could
imagine, and lasted only a few hundred miles, despite many MANY hours
of work by me. But I was already a stickler for perfection, and
accustomed to higher quality in Schwinn Varsity, and I think by then
Nishiki/Azuki, so I may have sold it down the river too soon.

So the price is FAR less, and the quality somewhat better now. But
the price to get all that is FAR too great, imo. But that's another
topic

Bill Westphal

 

[[email protected]]

"jim beam" writes:

>>>> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project
>>>> to create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a
>>>> monthly basis to account for changing technologies and views.

>>>> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions
>>>> regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
>>>> beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but
>>>> accepted views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength
>>>> of ISIS throughout it's range and compared to octalink for
>>>> example.

>>>> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
>>>> relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech
>>>> matters and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this
>>>> collaboration?

>>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
>>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
>>> problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
>>> mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
>>> who knows.

>> Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic
>> valves on Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered
>> "Original Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the
>> History tab. It belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.

> wow, check this out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt

> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using
> a dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!

I suggest you read the desmodromic section that I wanted to re-write
and note that it is based on Ducati faith with practically no
references.

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> "jim beam" writes:
>
>>>>> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project
>>>>> to create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a
>>>>> monthly basis to account for changing technologies and views.
>
>>>>> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions
>>>>> regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
>>>>> beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but
>>>>> accepted views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength
>>>>> of ISIS throughout it's range and compared to octalink for
>>>>> example.
>
>>>>> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
>>>>> relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech
>>>>> matters and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this
>>>>> collaboration?
>
>>>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
>>>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
>>>> problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
>>>> mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
>>>> who knows.
>
>>> Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic
>>> valves on Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered
>>> "Original Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the
>>> History tab. It belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.
>
>> wow, check this out:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>
>> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using
>> a dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!
>
> I suggest you read the desmodromic section that I wanted to re-write
> and note that it is based on Ducati faith with practically no
> references.

i did read it. but you didn't read the purpose of the wiki - you ranted
on about springs. desmo valves don't have springs. hence, while your
article may have some interesting content, it's not appropriate to that
article.

you should:
1. re-submit it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppet_valve
2. submit a correct gif file of the desmo valve showing operation of the
return follower working - that one up there now doesn't.

 

[[email protected]]

Frank Krygowski writes:

>>> jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue, anodizing,
>>> brinelling, deformation, strength of materials, lubrication,
>>> bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make that kind
>>> of statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his dogma
>>> or your defense.

>> Ah, lordy, jim, you do consistently have the wrong end of the
>> stick. You miss the bloody obvious over and over again: that you
>> fail to prove your contentions. You make claims, you fail to back
>> them up, you expect everyone to take what you say as fact without
>> proof, and then you get all hurt and angry when we don't. If it
>> was only Jobst who blew you off, then I might have some sympathy
>> for you. But all the engineers in this newsgroup tell you where
>> you're wrong and you refuse to accept it.

> That is an excellent summary. The way it frequently goes is: Jobst
> posts an answer to a question.* jim beam runs in yelling that Jobst
> is wrong. Several engineers assert Jobst is indeed correct, and
> explain why. jim beam spews insults. And later, jim beam chides
> Jobst for not changing his opinion.

> *There's a chance that Jobst should modify his sometimes acerbic
> style. I've long suspected that Jobst used that style on jim beam
> in some early exchange, offended jim, and triggered jim's obvious
> vendetta.

At times I am amazed that readers don't recognize brazen BS claims and
smart-ass references to which I choose to reply with "acerbic style".
In response participants have a heyday with the style rather than the
BS to which it responded. You are correct, "jb" deserves that style
more often than others but he is not alone.

His list of items in need of retraction has failed to evoke from him a
correct and credible cause for these effects.

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
>>>> jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue, anodizing,
>>>> brinelling, deformation, strength of materials, lubrication,
>>>> bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make that kind
>>>> of statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his dogma
>>>> or your defense.
>
>>> Ah, lordy, jim, you do consistently have the wrong end of the
>>> stick. You miss the bloody obvious over and over again: that you
>>> fail to prove your contentions. You make claims, you fail to back
>>> them up, you expect everyone to take what you say as fact without
>>> proof, and then you get all hurt and angry when we don't. If it
>>> was only Jobst who blew you off, then I might have some sympathy
>>> for you. But all the engineers in this newsgroup tell you where
>>> you're wrong and you refuse to accept it.
>
>> That is an excellent summary. The way it frequently goes is: Jobst
>> posts an answer to a question.* jim beam runs in yelling that Jobst
>> is wrong. Several engineers assert Jobst is indeed correct, and
>> explain why. jim beam spews insults. And later, jim beam chides
>> Jobst for not changing his opinion.
>
>> *There's a chance that Jobst should modify his sometimes acerbic
>> style. I've long suspected that Jobst used that style on jim beam
>> in some early exchange, offended jim, and triggered jim's obvious
>> vendetta.
>
> At times I am amazed that readers don't recognize brazen BS claims and
> smart-ass references to which I choose to reply with "acerbic style".

wow, the only thing that's brazen around here is your gonads if you can
make a statement like that!

you present opinion as fact, [for which there is a long list which i'm
bored of repeating] and you ridicule anyone that dares to point out the
[contrary] facts. now, that's that if it's not bs acerbity?

> In response participants have a heyday with the style rather than the
> BS to which it responded. You are correct, "jb" deserves that style
> more often than others but he is not alone.
>
> His list of items in need of retraction has failed to evoke from him a
> correct and credible cause for these effects.

the day you correct your mistakes and stop masquerading opinion as fact,
that's when i'll stop calling you out. real simple.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-03-04, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> The last significant technological changes were effective indexed
> shifting, clipless pedals and brifters (although to be fair, prior art
> for these things was around 50+ years ago). Splined cranks and
> theadless headsets are minor and equivocal developments. Most
> "advancements" have been designed to improve things for bike
> manufacturers (cassette hubs, cartridge BBs, V-brakes, threadless
> headsets, cartridge bearing headsets) by simplifying labor and any
> benefit to consumers is incidental.

I thought of two more things that have been improved: cotterpins and
steel rims, which you don't see even on very cheap bikes these days.

For me the low-maintenance BBs do count as an improvement.

 

[Callistus Valerius]

> funnier still! jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue,
> anodizing, brinelling, deformation, strength of materials, lubrication,
> bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make that kind of
> statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his dogma or your
> defense.
----------
Let me turn this around, is there anything that jobst has been correct
about?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote: <snip ****>
> > You're easily confused today, jim. You might want to check into
> > why that is. You're extolling the responsibility and accuracy of
> > Sheldon, and yet here he is, voluntarily hosting and lending his
> > imprimatur to Jobst's FAQ- who you covertly accuse of being a fraud
> > practically every time you touch a keyboard to post to r.b.t. The
> > cognitive dissonance is striking.
>
> while i'm sure he can speak for himself on this issue, sheldon is not
> claiming authorship, he's simply hosting.

Hence my use of the word "hosting," jim.

> "why" may be the point to question, but he's prepared to accept
> things on face value from what i can see.
>
> /my/ point is that sheldon updates, jobst doesn't. sheldon doesn't
> tell us more than he knows, jobst does. but you won't discuss that
> distinction because it's not part of the fight, is it.

Sheldon is fairly circumspect in his posts, I agree. Jobst is- like
you- willing to go out on a limb and extrapolate from his base of
knowledge and experience. The striking thing is that you regularly do
everything you accuse Jobst of, yet you are so convinced of your
rightness that you can't see it. I have seen Jobst back down a number
of times when someone proves one of his contentions wrong with good math
or empirical data. You, not so much. You insist they don't understand
you rather than coming to your own understanding that your arguments
often fail to prove or compel. Instead of improving the quality of your
argument, your logic and writing deteriorates as you get manifestly
frustrated and angry.

I guess the difference comes down to Jobst seeming to be mostly
dedicated to advancing the common understanding of bikes, and you
seeming to be mostly dedicated to bringing down Jobst a peg or two. The
former is helpful to me, the latter is not. It's too bad, really. If
you are, as you claim, trained in materials science then you could bring
a lot to the discussion. I've appreciated some of the rational posts
you've made on the subject. But you'd have to pack away the obvious
animus you feel towards Jobst to make it so.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 4, 7:48 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue,
> > > anodizing, brinelling, deformation, strength of materials,
> > > lubrication, bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you
> > > make that kind of statement? i don't know which is more
> > > ridiculous - his dogma or your defense.
> >
> > Ah, lordy, jim, you do consistently have the wrong end of the
> > stick. You miss the bloody obvious over and over again: that you
> > fail to prove your contentions. You make claims, you fail to back
> > them up, you expect everyone to take what you say as fact without
> > proof, and then you get all hurt and angry when we don't. If it
> > was only Jobst who blew you off, then I might have some sympathy
> > for you. But all the engineers in this newsgroup tell you where
> > you're wrong and you refuse to accept it.
>
> That is an excellent summary. The way it frequently goes is:
> Jobst posts an answer to a question.*
> jim beam runs in yelling that Jobst is wrong.
> Several engineers assert Jobst is indeed correct, and explain why.
> jim beam spews insults.
> And later, jim beam chides Jobst for not changing his opinion.
>
> *There's a chance that Jobst should modify his sometimes acerbic
> style. I've long suspected that Jobst used that style on jim beam in
> some early exchange, offended jim, and triggered jim's obvious vendetta.

Yeah, it's puzzling to watch. I agree that Jobst's writing style does
sometimes make him some enemies and provoke fights that aren't
necessary, but jim's deal is pretty unique in these newsgroups. There's
been only a couple other people so thoroughly dedicated to attacking
Jobst (Kunich and Mitke spring to mind here), but none as doggedly
persistent as jim beam.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> the day you correct your mistakes and stop masquerading opinion as
> fact, that's when i'll stop calling you out. real simple.

And when are you going to stop masquerading opinions as facts?

 

[Rado bladteth Rzeznicki]

jim beam wrote:

> wow, check this out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>
> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!

This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and yet the
"brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't even mention its
author.

--
Best regards,
Rado bladteth Rzeznicki

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:12:21 +0000, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
<[email protected]> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>
>> wow, check this out:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>>
>> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
>> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!
>
>This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and yet the
>"brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't even mention its
>author.

Dear Rado,

Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.

I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.

They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.

That tends to frustrate non-neutral posters.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Rado bladteth Rzeznicki]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:12:21 +0000, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> wow, check this out:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>>>
>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
>>> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!
>> This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and yet the
>> "brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't even mention its
>> author.
>
> Dear Rado,
>
> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.
>
> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
> makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.
>
> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.

The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.

--
Best regards,
Rado bladteth Rzeznicki

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:19:53 +0000, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:12:21 +0000, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> wow, check this out:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>>>>
>>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
>>>> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!
>>> This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and yet the
>>> "brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't even mention its
>>> author.
>>
>> Dear Rado,
>>
>> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.
>>
>> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
>> makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.
>>
>> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.
>
>The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
>example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
>content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.

Dear Rado,

Why do you think so many editors and editing robots at Wiki had so
many problems with Jobst?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Gary Young]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:45:52 -0700, carlfogel wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:12:21 +0000, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> wow, check this out:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>>>
>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
>>> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!
>>
>>This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and yet the
>>"brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't even mention its
>>author.
>
> Dear Rado,
>
> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.
>
> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst makes--editorial
> rejection is not "bashing" anything.
>
> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.
>
> That tends to frustrate non-neutral posters.
>
Maybe so, but since experts are often not neutral, Wikipedia seems to
deprive itself of their contributions. This blog entry is about a
philosopher who was rebuffed when he tried to correct a section of an
article dealing with his area of specialization and even his own book:

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/

The final word from the editor:

"Chalmers, if that is your name, your criticisms are not in the spirit of
Wikipedia. Don’t wave your hand with a pompous air of authority, get them
dirty by actually contributing."

That being said, Wikipedia is still a great resource if you keep in mind
its limitations. It also helps that Wikipedia doesn't try to erase clues
to an article's credibility -- like the editor-contributor exchange
referenced above.

 

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

>>>>> wow, check this out:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt

>>>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research"
>>>>> using a dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim
>>>>> cracking!

>>>> This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and
>>>> yet the "brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't
>>>> even mention its author.

>>> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.

>>> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
>>> makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.

>>> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.

This is bashing because they use every trick in the rule book to
intimidate writers. Rules that don't apply and rules they break
themselves often. Don't be misled by the term "editor", I am also an
editor as anyone who edits or submits articles.

Here's an opinion by an editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RadicalBender

>> The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
>> example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
>> content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.

> Why do you think so many editors and editing robots at Wiki had so
> many problems with Jobst?

I think you exaggerate with "so many" there are two in the Ducati
defense and one in the brake fade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves#Why_use_desmodromic_drive

Both of these articles put forth unsourced claims, desmodromic, that
valves can be opened and closed faster, which is untrue, and loss of
brakes is caused by gas bearing from out-gassing hot brake shoes.
These are both central topics of belief that don't allow questioning.
The purveyors of these themes do not have valid sources for their
articles.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

On 05 Mar 2007 20:56:32 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>>>> wow, check this out:
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>
>>>>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research"
>>>>>> using a dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim
>>>>>> cracking!
>
>>>>> This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and
>>>>> yet the "brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't
>>>>> even mention its author.
>
>>>> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.
>
>>>> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
>>>> makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.
>
>>>> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.
>
>This is bashing because they use every trick in the rule book to
>intimidate writers. Rules that don't apply and rules they break
>themselves often. Don't be misled by the term "editor", I am also an
>editor as anyone who edits or submits articles.
>
>Here's an opinion by an editor:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RadicalBender
>
>>> The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
>>> example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
>>> content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.
>
>> Why do you think so many editors and editing robots at Wiki had so
>> many problems with Jobst?
>
>I think you exaggerate with "so many" there are two in the Ducati
>defense and one in the brake fade.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves#Why_use_desmodromic_drive
>
>Both of these articles put forth unsourced claims, desmodromic, that
>valves can be opened and closed faster, which is untrue, and loss of
>brakes is caused by gas bearing from out-gassing hot brake shoes.
>These are both central topics of belief that don't allow questioning.
>The purveyors of these themes do not have valid sources for their
>articles.
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

You're still complaining that you sense and detect that people bash
you, that everyone else exaggerates, and that others are mentally
blind.

That's why you're struggling so hard in Wiki. You're talking about
"the Ducati defense" when Wiki isn't about attack and defense. It's
not a newsgroup.

Similarly, your pot-kettle-black arguments are going to be ignored. If
you feel that articles have problems, follow the established Wiki
procedures to try to resolve them.

Try working with them instead of attacking them and you may be
pleasantly surprised.

Cheers,

Carl FOgel

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-03-05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
> example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
> content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.

My suggestion, if you have the time and inclination, would be to write
your own accounts of brake fade and desmodromic valves and other
matters, complete with thorough calculations explaining clearly the
parts that are just a matter of reasoning (the amount that a hot drum
expands by, the amount of gas that could plausibly be evolved, etc.),
and host them somewhere else. Then make small and tactful edits to the
Wikipedia pages, citing these other pages as references or just linking
to them at the bottom.

I also think you might have got away with deleting the gas-bearing bit
on the grounds that the citation (that Times article) was fairly
dubious, if you hadn't also inserted into the article a refutation of
the theory. However obvious it might be to you that the gas-bearing
theory is a non-starter, it isn't to everyone, and so is just as much in
need of a citation.

 

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

>>>>>>> wow, check this out:
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt

>>>>>>> his "original research" there is like his "original research"
>>>>>>> using a dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim
>>>>>>> cracking!

>>>>>> This is great. They bash Jobst for his "original research" and
>>>>>> yet the "brake fade" entry is based on an article that doesn't
>>>>>> even mention its author.

>>>>> Thanks for the link to Wiki editors and robots.

>>>>> I think that you're making the same mistake that Jobst
>>>>> makes--editorial rejection is not "bashing" anything.

>>>>> They're trying to run as neutral an encyclopedia as they can.

>> This is bashing because they use every trick in the rule book to
>> intimidate writers. Rules that don't apply and rules they break
>> themselves often. Don't be misled by the term "editor", I am also an
>> editor as anyone who edits or submits articles.

>> Here's an opinion by an editor:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RadicalBender

>>>> The problem is that they are not neutral themselves as "brake fade"
>>>> example shows. If they followed the rules by the book, most of Wiki
>>>> content should be deleted due to the lack of proper sources.

>>> Why do you think so many editors and editing robots at Wiki had so
>>> many problems with Jobst?

>> I think you exaggerate with "so many" there are two in the Ducati
>> defense and one in the brake fade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle_engine_valves#Why_use_desmodromic_drive

>> Both of these articles put forth unsourced claims, desmodromic, that
>> valves can be opened and closed faster, which is untrue, and loss of
>> brakes is caused by gas bearing from out-gassing hot brake shoes.
>> These are both central topics of belief that don't allow questioning.
>> The purveyors of these themes do not have valid sources for their
>> articles.

> You're still complaining that you sense and detect that people bash
> you, that everyone else exaggerates, and that others are mentally
> blind.

You interpret that as complaining. These articles are biased in favor
of an antiquated valve mechanism in the presence of all others who
tried it, as you can see from the references I give. The claims of
superior performance are unsupported. How do you approach this in a
better manner than to propose a rewording and change in emphasis. You
should at least question why only one manufacturer uses the mechanism.

> That's why you're struggling so hard in Wiki. You're talking about
> "the Ducati defense" when Wiki isn't about attack and defense. It's
> not a newsgroup.

What would you call it? They did not hesitate to attack and belittle
with condescending comments ("Jobst, if you only understood...).
They are true believers and don't want to have other ideas presented.

> Similarly, your pot-kettle-black arguments are going to be ignored. If
> you feel that articles have problems, follow the established Wiki
> procedures to try to resolve them.

I guess you didn't follow the different Wiki dispute sequence that is
described in the discussion pages.

> Try working with them instead of attacking them and you may be
> pleasantly surprised.

You might direct that suggestion to the other side. If you read my
responses you'll see openings for discussion that remain opened but
unanswered.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 5, 2:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:

<snipped>

- on Wikipedia -


>
> This is bashing because they use every trick in the rule book to
> intimidate writers. Rules that don't apply and rules they break
> themselves often.


Apparently, there are no mirrors to be found at Chez Brandt! ;-)