Two wheels does it

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Quoted message said:

Of course that would alienate us from Society,
but ... screw Society, right? We can march off
independently to the beats of our own drummers &
pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,

I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".

Bicycling on any sort of bicycle configuration doesn't need
any justification or rationalisation AFIC. I guess it's a
binary thing -- you're riding, or ya ain't. You're a cyclist,
or ya ain't. Plain & simple. We riders don't need to tear
ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other,
from the retired couples toodling around park paths, to the
commuters bombing down urban arterials, to the coffee shop
trendies, to the hell-bent-for-leather racers in their yellow &
black killer bee costumes, to escapee tourers, to the folks who
just plain ride to get around. But all too often, we ourselves
are our worst enemies. We pedal-pushers are all linked. We
share common interests and common experiences. I think that's
something to joyously celebrate, but unfortunately some
party-poopers think otherwise.

Oh, well. The party-poopers ye shall always have among you.

But y'know what? Out on the streets in real life is pretty
different from here in UseNetLand. When I'm out & about on
ol' Pig Iron, I get into all kinds of nice interactions with
fellow riders and other people (including some downright pretty
and charming women.) And my ugly rig even occasionally gets
compliments from folks whom it nostalgically reminds of bicycles
back in "the old country" (wherever that may be.) So, I take my
"screw Society" back. Screw party-poopers! Double screw 'em!

Keep the human-powered, self-propelled faith.
Let your smile be a fairing.
And please don't let a bunch of stupid words get you down.

Cheers & a flick o' the forelock from one Bicycle Rider to another,
Tom

--
-- "You are sentenced to hang by the neck until you cheer up."
-- from Monty Python's Flying Circus
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> writes:
::
:::: Of course that would alienate us from Society,
:::: but ... screw Society, right? We can march off
:::: independently to the beats of our own drummers &
:::: pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
:::: ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,
:::
::: I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
::: the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".
::
:: Bicycling on any sort of bicycle configuration doesn't need
:: any justification or rationalisation AFIC. I guess it's a
:: binary thing -- you're riding, or ya ain't. You're a cyclist,
:: or ya ain't. Plain & simple. We riders don't need to tear
:: ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
:: stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other,
:: from the retired couples toodling around park paths, to the
:: commuters bombing down urban arterials, to the coffee shop
:: trendies, to the hell-bent-for-leather racers in their yellow &
:: black killer bee costumes, to escapee tourers, to the folks who
:: just plain ride to get around. But all too often, we ourselves
:: are our worst enemies. We pedal-pushers are all linked. We
:: share common interests and common experiences. I think that's
:: something to joyously celebrate, but unfortunately some
:: party-poopers think otherwise.
::
:: Oh, well. The party-poopers ye shall always have among you.
::
:: But y'know what? Out on the streets in real life is pretty
:: different from here in UseNetLand. When I'm out & about on
:: ol' Pig Iron, I get into all kinds of nice interactions with
:: fellow riders and other people (including some downright pretty
:: and charming women.) And my ugly rig even occasionally gets
:: compliments from folks whom it nostalgically reminds of bicycles
:: back in "the old country" (wherever that may be.) So, I take my
:: "screw Society" back. Screw party-poopers! Double screw 'em!
::
:: Keep the human-powered, self-propelled faith.
:: Let your smile be a fairing.
:: And please don't let a bunch of stupid words get you down.
::
::
:: Cheers & a flick o' the forelock from one Bicycle Rider to another,
::

Hear Hear!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

Tom Keats wrote:

[much gratuitous snippage]

Quoted message said:

:: We riders don't need to tear
:: ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
:: stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other

Quoted message said:

Hear Hear!

Well, yeah. It's hurtful to us all when cylists pick on
each other. I've seen such things happen among chickens.
We should be above that. We're supposed to be more civilized
and brainially-developed than a bunch of hen-pecking chickens.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Dan Burkhart said:

Robert
Note that my comment was a smartass response in kind. It does however
reflect my own experience with heavily loaded, self supported touring.
Your mileage may vary, but for myself,(245lbs) pulling a Bob trailer(12
lbs) jammed with camping gear and such,(50lbs) I am able to generate far
more sustained pulling power in the recumbent position than on an
upright. Granted, the bike weighs 50 lbs vs say, 25 lbs for a good
upright touring, but I still wouldn't trade for this application.
It's been a few years since I have done a road trip, and it is hard to
say when I will get a chance to do another, but I will always keep a
'bent in the stable for the long rides.(Even though I do have some nice
comfortable uprights.)
Dan

Dan,

Point taken.

Robert

In rec.bicycles.misc Johnny Sunset said:

I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
bicycle(s) to recumbents.

Yup, and I've never had a problem with your posts. I consider DougC on
the other hand as a textbook case of evangelizing asshat. People like
him are found in every branch of human endeavor, whether it's Linux,
BSD, Windows, HPVs, Gaming consoles, RPGs (pen and paper) or something
else. I'd have to say that people like him are the number one reason
I've become *less* interested in recumbents though.

Quoted message said:

[2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not fit in a
paceline well.

We've had recumbents out for my groups evening rides without problems.
But then we're more likely to resemble flocking birds than pacelining
racers.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
A Difficulty for Every Solution.
-- Motto of the Federal Civil Service

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: [email hidden] wrote:
> ::::: ...
> ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> ::
> :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> :: an upright bicycle.
>
> I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> either of them can't serve my needs.

Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
purpose.

> I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> the road as opposed to another car!...

Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
purpose.

Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

How about you address directly any slights to the
slighting party? Or go back to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.

WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
UPRIGHT BICYCLES?

You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
never on topic.

--
Michael Press

Michael Warner said:

Johnny Sunset said:

I am not bothered by these comments

So unbothered, in fact, that you avoid rides where you might
hear them, and want everyone on usenet to know it.

WHOOSH!

It is not that I would be bothered, but that I would be showing up
where I was not wanted. I see no reason to unnecessarily aggravate
people in real life.

Try to have a less self-centered outlook.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
> :::::::: ...
> :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> ::::::::
> ::::::
> :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> :::::: conventional?
> :::::
> ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> :::
> ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> ::: serve my needs.
> ::
> :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> :: purpose.
> ::
> ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> ::
> :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> :: purpose.
> ::
> :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
>
> Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> division.

The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.

> The only reason I posted
> here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> be a troll playhouse.

Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.

> This is very disappointing.

Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.

[1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
consists of a bicycle.

Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
loser, then stop acting like one.

Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!

You yourself said you do not react well to being
bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.

Do not address me as `Dude'.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):

Quoted message said:

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > ::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > ::::: ...
> > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > :::::
> > :::
> > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > ::
> > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > :: an upright bicycle.
> >
> > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > either of them can't serve my needs.
>
> Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> purpose.
>
> > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > the road as opposed to another car!...
>
> Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> purpose.
>
> Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

How about you address directly any slights to the
slighting party? Or go back to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.

WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
UPRIGHT BICYCLES?

You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
never on topic.

Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > :::::::: ...
> > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > ::::::::
> > ::::::
> > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > :::::: conventional?
> > :::::
> > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > :::
> > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > ::: serve my needs.
> > ::
> > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > :: purpose.
> > ::
> > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > ::
> > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > :: purpose.
> > ::
> > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> >
> > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > division.
>
> The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
>
> > The only reason I posted
> > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > be a troll playhouse.
>
> Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
>
> > This is very disappointing.
>
> Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
>
> [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> consists of a bicycle.

Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
loser, then stop acting like one.

Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!

You yourself said you do not react well to being
bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Mr. Press,

A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.

If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
newsgroup.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Bill Sornson said:

Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):

Quoted message said:

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?

Don't get snippy with Michael, Skippy.

-Dude

Quoted message said:

Dan Burkhart said:

Robert
Note that my comment was a smartass response in kind. It does however
reflect my own experience with heavily loaded, self supported touring.
Your mileage may vary, but for myself,(245lbs) pulling a Bob trailer(12
lbs) jammed with camping gear and such,(50lbs) I am able to generate far
more sustained pulling power in the recumbent position than on an
upright. Granted, the bike weighs 50 lbs vs say, 25 lbs for a good
upright touring, but I still wouldn't trade for this application.
It's been a few years since I have done a road trip, and it is hard to
say when I will get a chance to do another, but I will always keep a
'bent in the stable for the long rides.(Even though I do have some nice
comfortable uprights.)
Dan

Dan,

Point taken.

Then too, you don't get prostate problems from them.

dl

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > ::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > ::::: ...
> > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > :::::
> > > :::
> > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > ::
> > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > >
> > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> >
> > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > purpose.
> >
> > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> >
> > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > purpose.
> >
> > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
>
> How about you address directly any slights to the
> slighting party? Or go back to
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.

WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
UPRIGHT BICYCLES?

You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
never on topic.

Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?

I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that
you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
of history. The all capital posting method is another
style that belongs in arbr, and not here.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):

Quoted message said:

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?

Don't worry about it Bill, I know what I am doing.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > :::::::: ...
> > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > ::::::::
> > > ::::::
> > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > :::::: conventional?
> > > :::::
> > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > :::
> > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > ::
> > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > :: purpose.
> > > ::
> > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > ::
> > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > :: purpose.
> > > ::
> > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > >
> > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > division.
> >
> > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> >
> > > The only reason I posted
> > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > be a troll playhouse.
> >
> > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> >
> > > This is very disappointing.
> >
> > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> >
> > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > consists of a bicycle.
>
> Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> loser, then stop acting like one.

Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!

You yourself said you do not react well to being
bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Mr. Press,

A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.

No, you have to spell it out.

Quoted message said:

If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
newsgroup.

False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email hidden]>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > ::::::::
> > > > ::::::
> > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > :::::
> > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > :::
> > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > :: purpose.
> > > > ::
> > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > :: purpose.
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > division.
> > >
> > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > >
> > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > >
> > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > >
> > > > This is very disappointing.
> > >
> > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > >
> > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > consists of a bicycle.
> >
> > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > loser, then stop acting like one.
>
> Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!

You yourself said you do not react well to being
bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.

Do not address me as `Dude'.

Mr. Press,

A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.

No, you have to spell it out.

Quoted message said:

If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
newsgroup.

False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email hidden]>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > > ::::: ...
> > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > :::::
> > > > :::
> > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > ::
> > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > >
> > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > >
> > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > >
> > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> >
> > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > slighting party? Or go back to
> > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
>
> WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> UPRIGHT BICYCLES?

You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
never on topic.

Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?

I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that
you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
of history...

I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly
it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I
AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT
IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".

Quoted message said:

The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.

Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email hidden]>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > ::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > :::::
> > > > > :::
> > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > >
> > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > >
> > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > >
> > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> >
> > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
>
> You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> never on topic.

Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?

I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
to disparaging remarks about recumbent bicycles that
you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
of history...

I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly
it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I
AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT
IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".

Generalized complaints about how you are mistreated
here is not productive. Address directly those silly
upright riders.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.

Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?

Take it as you will, the style has no place here.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Johnny Sunset said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email hidden]>,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
> > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > ::::::
> > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > :::::
> > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > :::
> > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > >
> > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > division.
> > > >
> > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > >
> > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > >
> > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > >
> > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> >
> > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
>
> You yourself said you do not react well to being
> bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
>
> Do not address me as `Dude'.

Mr. Press,

A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.

No, you have to spell it out.

Quoted message said:

If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
newsgroup.

False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]

You cannot cite any place that I expressed the
sentiment you ascribe to me. Hence, you predicate that
injunction upon a false premise.

As a spokesman for recumbent riders, you may wish to
reexamine your approach. Yawning in someone's face and
using a demeaning form of address is
counter-productive.

--
Michael Press