Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:34:02 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >He's only going to play semantic games whilst
> >avoiding this fundamental truth.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. :)

No, he just provided a great litmus test for the sheep mentality: a
convenient rationalization for evading the responsibility of thinking.


Shayne Wissler
 
> >Your claim is one of the usual arguments put forth to justify the
> >stripping of ownership from Native Americans. It's racist ********.
> >Planting a flag on a continent and declaring ownership is no better a
> >claim- indeed, a much weaker claim to ownership- than living on it for
> >hundreds of generations. But that's basically what Europeans did.
>
> All that is well and good but the problem arises with your very first question-
> what constitutes ownership and how is it established? Wars were fought for
> territorial expansion long before Europeans landed on the American continents.
> The various American Indian tribes, especially the Plains tribes, established
> many of their claims by forcefully removing the land's previous occupants. The
> Blackfoot threw out the Lakota, the Lakota threw out the Crow, the Crow threw
> out the Mandan, the Mandan threw out the Flathead, the Flathead threw out the
> Nez Perce, ad nauseum. The "hundreds of generations" long occupation by one
> tribe of a specific territory you point to has simply never existed, not in
> North or South America.
> So the question remains- at what point do we stop going back in time and say,
> "This group of conquerors own the land. The later conquerors are nothing but
> thieves."?

I guess we can call "conquerors" to the ones who obliterate both the
inhabitants and the land they occupy. Usually they change the land for
the worst in the name of "development." And of course the don't
tolerate COMPETITION.
 
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
> > above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
> > Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
> > are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
> > the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
> > mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
> > global scale.
>
> I checked with Amtrak to see how long it would take to
> get from Kansas City to Miami and it would take 3 days.
>
> They would route me through Chicago or Washington D.C.
> It is ridiculous to even consider doing this.

They want you to do sightseeing, that's all. But of course, someday in
the year 2150--when the bullet train runs--you'll be able to make it
in a few hours. Be patient.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> > Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of
>> > it.
>>
>> And what exactly does constitute ownership? Native Americans were
>> "roaming around" as you put it for thousands of years before
>> Europeans came to these shores. They built cities, the cultivated,
>> the hunted. Indeed, 500 years ago Native Americans had the second
>> or third largest city in the world.
>
> "Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern
> Americans" can. It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my
> house and the land it's built on, not you and your mob.

Malarkey and more malarkey. Where do you get this stuff? The US and
state governments own millions of acres. Tribes own millions of
acres. Corporations own millions of acres. Co-ops own millions of
acres. These are collectives and yet they have ownership. What'cha
been smoking, dude?

The simple fact is that there were millions of people who owned this
continent long before Columbus and his thugs showed up. Later
invaders basically classified the natives as vermin and exterminated
them, accidentally and deliberately. Lots of ugly, ugly history in the
establishment of these United States.

> And an individual walking across a given area of land, or putting up
> a tent (or teepee), admiring the pristine view, or shooting some
> things with arrows doesn't give him ownership of that land
> either. The land is yours only if you mix your labor with the land
> creating something that helps to sustain your individual life, such
> as building a house and raising crops.

What a load of ****. I own 14 acres of northern Wisconsin. I've
built nothing on it, I haven't even been there in 20 years. So by
your definition I don't own it, even though the deed's been held in my
family for 75 years.

> You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent
> collectivist.

Resorting already to ad hominem is not a good sign for the strength of
your position.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't mean
> it creates or owns them.

Actually, the reverse is true. You have no rights except for what
the mob agrees to.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> Rational men define ownership by reference to natural law, which
> includes a man's right to pursuit of his own life. This is how
> property rights are derived and defined: in reference to the
> individual's needs for furthering his own life.

Natural law is also the creation of men, a concept not an independent
reality. The laws of physics are the only truly natural laws, as they
exist and operate without interference from God or Man.
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> >wide use.
>
> Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.

There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the freezing
and soaking department. It's called a "jacket". One of the really cool
things about jackets and other high-tech cycling clothing is that they often
come equiped with this temperature control thingie so you can make micro
adjustments to avoid overheating and getting too cold. It's called a
"zipper", and it is really effective. In the fully-upright position, it
keeps you nice and toasty, and as you continue your ride, you can put it
into lower positions until it is full deployed and you can enjoy maximum
cooling. You can use the zipper even while riding. If you watched the Tour
De France you can see the world's finest riders availing themselves of this
advancement in cycling apparel technology.

> And your commute
> will likely take a lot longer,

Commute is ~5 miles in suburban streets, ~9 miles freeway, ~1 mile downtown
streets

Driving in rush hour traffic, parking in building: 35 minutes, but it costs
$20/day to park
Driving in rush hour traffic, parking in more remote lot: 40 minutes, $9 to
park and then walk to office
Driving to park and ride lot, taking bus: 45 minutes, free parking, employer
subsidizes $2 bus fare
Riding bike to park and ride lot, taking bus: 55 minutes, ditto subsidy of
fare
Riding bike to work, no bus: 70 minutes

I vary how much I ride the bike vs. the bus, depending on weather and if I'm
late. If I ride the bike, then I don't need to go to a gym or otherwise work
out, so I save 60 - 90 minutes on gym time (including driving there), plus I
don't have to pay gym membership fees. As a parent who is employed outside
of the home, I want to minimize my away-from-home time, which would include
time at the Y as well as time commuting.

Further, there is nothing more reliable in terms of consistent commute time
than using a bike. Yeah, I wrote that it takes 35 minutes to drive, but you
really don't know when there's going to be a jam. Traffic on the freeway can
be a parking lot, and I just cruise on my bike. If I want to *know* I'll be
at home at a particular time, biking wins hands down. So, overall, the
fastest for me is the multimodal commute of riding the bike to a park and
ride.

> and forget about carrying anything
> significant.

It's relatively unusual that I'd haul in, say, a fridge to work. I've
brought in odd things, like a pair of crutches for a lame co-worker that
required some creative thinking about how to bungee them to the bike frame.
The usual things -- lunch, wallet, palm pilot -- fit without difficulty in
the bike bag. Carrying things like a pile of sales presentation folders
require a bungee to the rack or remembering to wear a backpack. Do you
usually take large or bulky items to work? Do most people?


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't mean
> > it creates or owns them.
>
> Actually, the reverse is true. You have no rights except for what
> the mob agrees to.

You claim that my life is morally allowed only by permission from the
collective. And you claim that it's ad hominem when I call you a
collectivist? To declare that accusing you of holding the position you avow
is an insult is a bit strange, even for a collectivist.


Shayne Wissler
 
Claire.
A couple of things that always detered me from riding to work was that
it forces you to change in the office and winters in some areas of the
world are just plain mean.

Hauling a change of clothes with you everyday is a pain in the butt
and lets face it, dress shirts and pants look like **** after a
crunchy ride in a bike bag.

For those of us who have a casual dress workplace this isn't so much
of problem, but I'd still keep an extra set of clean clothes at the
office.
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent
> > collectivist.
>
> Resorting already to ad hominem is not a good sign for the strength of
> your position.

I appreciate your statement that "You have no rights except for what
the mob agrees to", it saves me from the effort of correcting all the sundry
errors you make. Only whackos would buy into your ideas on rights, and they
are not a concern as far as arguments go (though one does have to worry
about them in general). Call that ad hominem if you like, your opinion
doesn't really matter anyway.


Shayne Wissler
 
"Don Wagner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Claire.
> A couple of things that always detered me from riding to work was that
> it forces you to change in the office and winters in some areas of the
> world are just plain mean.

Choosing to ride your bike to work does not have to mean riding every single
day, all year long. Especially in snowy areas like the northeast.

Ride when you can, and keep in mind that every day you DO ride, is less $$
out of your pocket, less **** out of the tailpipe, and more beats left in
your heart.

Once you get started doing it, riding in less than perfect weather becomes
not such a daunting proposition.

Pete
The reward for excellence is a lack of punishment.
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
> >
> >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
> >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?
>
> I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.
>
> >Transportation Alternatives
> >
> >There are a number of beneficial forms of transportation that make our
> >lives easier, reduce congestion, reduce our dependence on cars &
> >foreign oil, are safer & less costly, and help save the planet:
> >
> >1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
> >above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
> >Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
> >are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
> >the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
> >mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
> >global scale.
>
> High speed trains cost a fortune to build and maintain. Even with
> heavy state subsidies, they cost a fortune to ride on. And their
> fixed routing makes them extremely inflexible. Regional trains, same
> thing except they are more economical to ride; their infrequent
> operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
> convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
> with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
> diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.
>

They increase costs, which helps those who think that travel ought to be
limited to the rich.
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> > >wide use.
> >
> > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.
>
> There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the freezing
> and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".

Not very helpful. We have always had those.
 
The Lindbergh Baby <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> > you want people to pay for
> > their own parks too?
>
> Um, we *do.*

No, you are paying for the 'homeless parks' as they are mostly
occupied by now...

Jose Marti: Park for homeless or locals?

Picture this: A cozy little park, shaded and green, with a few tables,
a shelter.

Does that seem inviting for picnicking? So my wife and I thought, but
there was something wrong in this picture — three homeless people were
sleeping over as many tables, one remaining free.

Lucky us. Since the precedent of having put the homeless in one
shelter to sleep, I suggest that there should be a park for the
homeless as well. Jose Marti Park seems fine to me, since it's already
occupied.

By the way, Marti once said: "While there's a man sleeping in the mud,
how can there be another one sleeping in golden bed?" But, of course,
those were glorious times.

So, anyway, that's my proposal, though I realize that the little park
I'm talking about is out of the tourists' route and it may only be of
use to the locals. So, here's another solution in case that one is not
feasible: a park for the locals.
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]...
> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> > > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> > > >wide use.
> > >
> > > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.
> >
> > There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the
freezing
> > and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".
>
> Not very helpful. We have always had those.

Ah well, I guess not everyone has the capacity to master this sort of
technology. It's too bad -- they miss out on so much in life.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
> >
> >Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
> >others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?
>
> I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.

You would like communism. Only one option. ;)

>
> >Transportation Alternatives
> >
> >There are a number of beneficial forms of transportation that make our
> >lives easier, reduce congestion, reduce our dependence on cars &
> >foreign oil, are safer & less costly, and help save the planet:
> >
> >1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
> >above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
> >Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
> >are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
> >the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
> >mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
> >global scale.
>
> High speed trains cost a fortune to build and maintain. Even with
> heavy state subsidies, they cost a fortune to ride on. And their
> fixed routing makes them extremely inflexible. Regional trains, same
> thing except they are more economical to ride; their infrequent
> operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
> convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
> with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
> diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.

Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?

>
> >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> >wide use.
>
> Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain. And your commute
> will likely take a lot longer, and forget about carrying anything
> significant.

Good encouragement for Lance Armstrong, ah? You know what, he's riding
an obsolete transportation mode. And he ain't good at nothing. Are you
happy? ;)

>
> >3. SCOOTERS - Electric and push types are heavily used in urban areas
> >as daily transportation.
>
> *snicker*

Electric little machines are becoming fashion. Haven't you tried them?
;)

>
> >4. ROLLERBLADES - Used in urban areas by many as daily transportation.
>
> All the disadvantages of bicycles, plus slower and more dangerous.
> Not to mention illegal in many cities. At least you don't have to
> worry much about where to put them. And I say this as an inline
> skater myself.

If you don't have good bike lanes they may not work. But if you did,
you could fast with little risk. I'm a skater too.

>
> >5. WALKING - An often forgotten way to get around because so many
> >places have been made hostle to pedestrians. Still the preferred
> >choice in dense urban areas.
>
> Great, if you ain't going far. Like from your car to the door.

How can you walk if it is dangerous? Not an easy task in America...

Source: Talking Point, BBC News

Having lived in the US last year, I can say most of the comments here
belittling this lawsuit stem from ignorance of life in the US. People
here in the UK are MUCH more aware of what is healthy. In the US "Big
Food" dominates the airwaves and the vast majority of people are
genuinely misinformed. Americans live off processed food regularly
now.
Having said that, I think the lawsuit is partially misguided because
bad
food is no more than half the problem of obesity that is now coming to
the fore in the US. The other half is the lifestyle the country
imposes
on people. In the US you are literally FORCED to drive everywhere -
even
a 5 minute hop to a local supermarket. People live in a system where
they do everything sitting down. So it is not just that massive
amounts
of calories (with little nutrition) are readily and cheaply on offer,
but that burning any of it off in the normal course of a day is near
impossible.
James, UK
 
Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > >2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
> > >Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
> > >wide use.
> >
> > Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
> > winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain.
>
> There's this great new technology out there that's helpful in the freezing
> and soaking department. It's called a "jacket".

Works great in 90 degree weather.
 
In article <CR8Oc.176660$a24.132888@attbi_s03>,
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans" can.
> It's individuals that own not collectives.

Would you care to explain what you meant to say, because what you
asserted is factually wrong, to the order of many trillions of dollars
of valuation.

I would bet a token sum of money that "collectives" own substantially
more of the world's property than all individuals' holdings combined.

..max

--
the part of <[email protected]>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nothing except going 200mph... Can you beat that in your stupid SUV?

Last time I measured speed on an airplane I was on with my GPS receiver I
got about 525MPH. Since it was my GPS receiver, it was MPH not nautical
miles per hour.


> Good encouragement for Lance Armstrong, ah? You know what, he's riding
> an obsolete transportation mode. And he ain't good at nothing. Are you
> happy? ;)

Should we outfit soldiers with spears because they are used in athletics.
Most athletic events are to demonstrate human power on long obsolete
technology where the technology does not get in the way of old traditional
competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back