Freewheeling <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> On 12 Jan 2004 12:48:10 -0800,
[email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Freewheeling <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<
[email protected]>...
> >
> >> On 11 Jan 2004 11:20:13 -0800,
[email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most folks who ride recumbents are not ever going to improve themselves much physically or any
> >> >other way. Therefore, it is extremely interesting to hear what neophytes have to say about
> >> >recumbents. Yes, they will improve their riding skills and their conditioning to some small
> >> >extent, but they are not ever going to turn into world class hill climbers and racers. I am
> >> >really put off by all the advice that newbies receive from some of the old hands here on ARBR.
> >> >Most of it is very bum advice for newbies and is only suitable for hard core recumbent
> >> >cyclists.
> >>
> >> Uhm, this is simply an assertion without any facts or logic to back it up. The sort of thing
> >> one might expect to see on Indymedia. In other words, it reeks of ideology.
> >>
> >> But whatever, eh? Listen to novices if that's what turns you on. It's a free country, and a
> >> matter of almost infinitesimal import.
> >
> >I do not know why you are taking my posts apart paragraph by paragraph when you could just have
> >easily responded to them in toto all in one post. I am not going to bother to follow your lead as
> >it just creates needless confusion and redundancy. Besides which, you are not making any
> >worthwhile points anyway.
>
> Yeah you're right. Novices always know better than experts. Good thinking. Sorry about the
> confusion.
I can not be wasting my time with an idiot who does not even know how to post nor how to edit
someone else's post. Trying to follow you is nothing but confusion. And you claim to be some kind of
expert! What a laugh that is!
> >Most of the time what I am saying does not require any "facts" as I am merely stating a common
> >observation. I am always perfectly logical, but one man's logic is another man's total confusion.
> >There is no ideology connected with cycling for heaven's sake! Let us reserve that term for
> >political posts.
>
> An ideology is a belief system that's just short of a religious attitude in that logic plays a
> minimal role. And that fairly represents the "common observation" (common to a single individual,
> which is an idiosyncratic definition of the term) that folks who know nothing about a topic tend
> to know more than those who have some experience and knowledge to go on. But whatever, call it a
> religious attitude if you like. What it's *not* is wisdom or sense.
It is very valuable to pay attention to what novices and newbies have to say about recumbents. If
you don't, that is because you are a know it all idiot. And an arrogant idiot at that! They are the
worst kind of idiots because they always think they know more than they do. This newsgroup is
replete with these types and so of course you feel right at home here.
> And I'm not saying any of this with any particular animus toward you. But it's hard to imagine us
> getting anywhere if "common" means idiosyncratic, and "perfectly logical" means without a shred of
> reason or coherence.
So says you and so says I not! Get out a dictionary and look up the most common meanings of the
words that you feel you have to define for all our benefit. But I especially like that part about
no animus.
> Now, here's a fellow who is genuinely physically and mentally challenged by an awful affliction,
> but manages to say something profoundly insightful about it. Then again he has actual experience,
> so you'll probably think his observations aren't worth diddly.
Pure gobbledygook! Freewheeling doesn't know whether he is coming or going. Since you are a simple
man, I suggest you confine yourself to simple language and not attempt artful constructions.
>
http://www.wallofsleep.com/
I have learned from previous experience from dealing with nuts and screwballs not to bother with
their references. It is a total waste of my time.
> >I will take a novice over an "expert" like you any day when I want to know what the general
> >reaction is to recumbent bicycles.
>
> Whatever. The point is that "general reaction to recumbent bicycles" wasn't the topic.
You select your topics and I select my topics. And apparently, never the twain shall meet.
> >You are hard core. I am not interested in your views because of that fact alone. But you might at
> >least have the good sense to realize that you are hard core and that much of what you have to say
> >to the novice and the newbie is therefore crackpot and just plain bum advice.
>
> My advice is "crackpot and just plain bum" because I care about the topic, and have some (modest)
> experience? By inference, you ought to be intensely interested in my thoughts and observations
> about mountain climbing or stock car racing, since I have no experience at all in those endeavors.
You are unable to distinguish between hard core and soft core (experienced recumbent riders vs
inexperienced recumbent riders). That is because you are not able to make distinctions period. It is
all one to you. I have made the distinctions clearly enough so that even an idiot would know what I
am talking about. Draw your own conclusions. But you are obduracy incarnate.
> >Yes, it certainly is a free country and everyone in it can read what you have to say about
> >recumbents and they can read what I have to say about recumbents and then they can choose whom to
> >believe. Does any of this matter in the grand scheme of things. Of course not! But in the grand
> >scheme of things, nothing matters - not you, not me, not even
> >Mr. Sherman!
>
> Who said anything about the "grand scheme of things?"
too severely. No one will know what we are talking about except you and me.
> Look, I don't know what your problem is but you seem extraordinarily emotionally animated about
> people with expertise, insight, or passion. The fallacies are so obvious, however, that there's
> little danger you'd lead anyone astray. And that's really why it matters very little. Do what you
> like, but don't expect immunity when you challenge people based on your "common" observations.
I see you have taken a leaf from my own book in how to compliment yourself. Unfortunately, there is
no justification in your case. As far as I am concerned you have no expertise, no insight and your
passion leaves me cold. All your blather about facts, logic and fallacies begins and ends in your
own head. You do not even know how to read simple English let alone know how to think about anything
requiring any depth. As long as you confine yourself to what you think you know you will find plenty
of other idiots to agree with you. But you have shown all of us how you are when you encounter ideas
that don't fit your preconceived conceptions. You fit my very definition of an ideologue.
I will continue to challenge one and all whenever the spirit so moves me. I only wish I could make
some sense out of those who wish to take issue with me on a subject instead of having to constantly
respond in kind to know it alls like you who take offense at the slightest disagreement. May you
choke on your bile!
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
