"Tim McTeague" <
[email protected]> wrote
> basjan wrote:
> > Not really - the fact is, one man's "Seven/Serotta/Moots" is another man's Huffy... think
> > Independent Fabrications, etc, etc. I totally agree that there are in fact items out there that
> > appeal to the "true" connoiseur, but if I feel my Pinarello Galileo gives me 99% of the ride
> > your Moots gives you, I will pay 50% less, without worrying about the fact that half of the
> > group ride thinks their bikes are "superior". Get the point?
"Tim McTeague" <
[email protected]> wrote
> Not really. Where did you get the idea I have a Moots?
Just an example, Tim, just an example...
>And if you equate Seven/Serotta/Moots with Huffy, well, you are clearly
impaired. Pointless.
Come on Tim, be reasonable! My point, put very bluntly, is that it all depends on one's perspective.
There is always something "better" out there. Exactly what brand/technology constitutes "better"
depends on your perspective. Say I think IF bikes are the cat's whiskers, then maybe Moots will be
"like Huffy" to me, while to someone else Moots is the cherry, while Trek is "like Huffy". I was
simply trying to state that one should be careful of putting down something that is of value to
someone else, just because it is of little/no value to you. One's value is based on one's
perceptions.. In fact, my little Panansonic audio system might (don't take this literally, I just
mean it "might") take me places your "Thiel, Vandersteen, Revel, etc." doesn't take you!! For me it
is great, does not mean I am ignorant, just that I want to spend $300 on my little system, because
$4000 only gives me marginally more...
That is as simple as I can possible hope to explain myself.