What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



D

DI

Guest
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Jun 2, 9:28 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg
>
> Isn't he loveable? Well, we won't send him up there without proper
> tools because we plan to arm him with something his predecessors
> lacked: A POLITICAL PLATFORM, in writing, so anyone with basic reading
> skills can follow and there's no forgetting of electoral promises.
> Anyway here's our Platform:


Don gets goofier every day.
 
B

Bill

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>> other forms of exercise.

>>
>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>> every day.
>>
>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>> jog on?

>
> It will hardly matter. Joggers are going to end up with bad knees and
> feet no matter what the run on. As they get older, they will need those
> knee replacements. And that is super-painful surgery.
>
>
>

My reply to that is merely that joggers are idiots. Running on your
heels and crash landing every step is not even natural running. When I
decide not to ride my bike I run, faster than jogging but slower than a
full sprint. This works out to running about a block, walking and
catching me breath, then running another block, repeat until done.
No bad knees here at 58, actually no bad anything, since I have never
jogged.
People wonder what's up to see someone my age actually running past
them, but it works.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bill

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]
>> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
>> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
>> Bill Baka

>
> The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a
> summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was
> beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough
> to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That
> is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally,
> planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's
> problem, not your problem.
>

That is why I will spend the money to buy the tools to learn how to fix
my bike, car, house, or whatever. For what I could pay someone to do
something I can buy the tools and learn how to do it.
As for the woman who needed a superintendent to change a battery, well,
she probably needs to be put in a padded room. People that stupid really
are one of the problems with our society.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bill

Guest
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]
>> donquijote1954 wrote:

> ...
>>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>>

>> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
>> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.

>
> I read a review of a recently published book (I'd have to look it up and I
> don't have time right now, but I will if anyone wants to know) that
> suggested that if stores ran delivery trucks instead of all the clients
> having to come to the store, it could cut fuel usage by a significant
> percentage.
>
>

That qualifies as a "Maybe". When I go for large items I try to make it
one trip, and wandering through a home Depot or Sam's Club I almost
always buy more than I intended. If I had to have delivery trucks come
to me then I would feel a little too isolated, and I am not Amish.
Bill Baka
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a
>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>>>>> (Freeway
>>>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>>>>> bicycle
>>>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but
>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>>>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>>>>> motorcycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
>>>>> the time.
>>>> Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be
>>>> avoided.
>>>>
>>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>>> and Europe.

>> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
>> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
>> exceptions).
>>

>
> The czar of housing would need to make husbands and wives both to have
> jobs near each other, and then live in an apartment near both. Anything
> involving manufacturing has long been priced out of urban areas, so that
> would mean more jobs would have to got to China.


Why does the czar presently make such illogical commuting environments?

You don't need to live near your job in an urban area. It's nice, but
you don't have to. Ever hear of mass transit? It allows people who
don't live near their job to get to it quickly, cheaply, and in an
energy-efficient manner. You know, when it's available.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
>>
>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

>
> You don't have to drink alcohol to live...


It helps sometimes. ;)

And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!

> I am neither liberal nor conservative. I call em as I see em, and I feel no
> need to be lock step with anyone's political agenda.
>
>
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]omcast.net> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 11:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:13 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like it if it required a little more than fogging
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> mirror and $25 to obtain and keep a license.
>>>>>>>>>> I think if most drivers ponder it for a moment, they might agree
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> me. Wouldn't it be nice if the least capable of the drivers
>>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>> weren't on the road?
>>>>>>>>> It'd be great, but it's not really practical, sadly. The worst
>>>>>>>>> part is
>>>>>>>>> that the incompetents tend to live in places most dependent on the
>>>>>>>>> automobile.
>>>>>>>> In every other 1st world nation it is much much more expensive and
>>>>>>>> difficult to get a license. If someone can't drive a vehicle
>>>>>>>> safely,
>>>>>>>> they shouldn't be driving. I have very little sympathy for someone
>>>>>>>> being dependent on an automobile and not driving it responsibly.
>>>>>>> In every other first world nation, it is feasible to live without
>>>>>>> owning a
>>>>>>> car.
>>>>>> Probably not in the more remote rural areas and probably not in new
>>>>>> sprawled suburban areas.
>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My 2
>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a small
>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done on
>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>>> (Freeway
>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>>> bicycle
>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are another
>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each way
>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>>> beyond
>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>>> my
>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>>> works
>>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but won't
>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>>
>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>>> motorcycle.-
>>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>>

>> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
>> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
>> Bill Baka

>
> The New York Times had a strange article about the hazards of having a
> summer home. One woman whined that at her summer house the fire alarm was
> beeping because it needed a new battery. She said she did not know enough
> to change the battery, and needed a superintendent to do it for her!!! That
> is the New York City take on doing anything for yourself. So, naturally,
> planners don't care if you need lumber. That would be the superintendent's
> problem, not your problem.


So? That woman could have easily lived a sheltered life anywhere. If
anything, someone like that is rarer in NYC than most places - except
maybe in some enclaves of extreme blue blood wealth.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> ...
>>>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>>>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>>>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>>>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>>>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>>>> and Europe.
>>>
>>> One of the tragedies is that planning is for urban areas, and if you
>>> don't fit that model, planners could care less.

>>
>> I think the reality is that it is very hard to get support for planning
>> in rural areas. That is not the fault of planners, but simply a
>> political reality that exists. So, like everyone else, they do what can
>> be done and let the rest go.
>>

>
> Planners, according to ACCESS this month, are heavily derived from
> architects who plan for elaborate and fancy buildings.


I would agree with you there. But that doesn't mean that the very idea of
planning is bad. Just that we need to find a better way of educating
planners. I think once the hidebound modern and postmodern trained faculty
retires or dies, the situation will improve.

> This does not include rural, industrial and what most people want to live
> in.


For many schools, that may be true. Not all
http://www.cadc.auburn.edu/soa/rural-studio/projectstype.htm

> I have said all along we need to plan for what people want, not to preach
> to them that comfortable housing is bad.


You're saying that people should always be given exactly what they want and
no one should ever try to educate them on alternatives that might be better
for them and the community long term? So in the paper you posted where
people didn't want low income residents among them, essentially your
position is that the government should have backed off and let them have
what they wanted.

One issue is that sometimes what a community says it wants for itself
collectively is not compatible with every individual doing exactly what he
or she wants. For instance, if a community were to set a goal for itself to
reduce fuel consumption and the people there object to the initial cost of
insulation, then someone should at least try to educate the people as to the
value of insulation long term, if not mandate a certain minimum insulation
value.

I notice you also say comfortable, but not sturdy, low-maintenance, energy
efficient, or anything else a less educated owner or renter might not think
that he or she wants but might well be hurt by not having.

> What is surprising is what architects in the past denounced (say in UK),
> the now praise. It is like painting. Things go in and out of fashion.


Yes, once it was unfashionable to assert that the earth goes around the sun
rather than the reverse. As we learn things we adjust the conclusions we
draw from the available information over time. Would you have us believe
that in Sociology in the entire time you've been teaching none of the
material has changed at all?

You appear to have missed my point, though, which is that whether or not
planners are interested in rural areas, political bodies that fund planning
are emphatically not interested in planning there. A planner who
concentrated on rural areas exclusively might well find it difficult to eat.
So it's pretty natural for planning schools to prepare their students to be
able to operate where funds are available.

Funny you are so solicitous of Wal-mart's profit margin, but not of ordinary
people trying to make a living.

-Amy
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
>>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
>>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
>>>
>>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
>>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
>>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

>>
>> You don't have to drink alcohol to live...

>
> It helps sometimes. ;)
>
> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!


What? You have something against grapes???

Looks like the muscadines and eldeberries are planning a banner year here if
we don't get another big one.

-Amy
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
>>>> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
>>>> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."
>>>>
>>>> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
>>>> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
>>>> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?
>>> You don't have to drink alcohol to live...

>> It helps sometimes. ;)
>>
>> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!

>
> What? You have something against grapes???


I love grapes. I'm not a big fan of wine, however.

> Looks like the muscadines and eldeberries are planning a banner year here if
> we don't get another big one.


I never thought of those as good candidates for fermentation.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>> other forms of exercise.

>
>
> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
> every day.
>
> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
> jog on?


The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild occupational hazard.

The rest of us have varying degrees of anti-authoritarian sentiments
still, and don't expect to see every single thing we don't like banned.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>> other forms of exercise.

>>
>>
>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>> every day.
>>
>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>> jog on?

>
> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>
> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild
> occupational hazard.


Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>> other forms of exercise.

>>
>>
>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>> every day.
>>
>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>> jog on?

>
> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>
> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild
> occupational hazard.
>


You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. Why
do you enjoy being so stupid?
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>>> other forms of exercise.
>>>
>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>>> every day.
>>>
>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>>> jog on?

>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>>
>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a mild
>> occupational hazard.
>>

>
> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people. Why
> do you enjoy being so stupid?


I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a
fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle.

"It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to
ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real,
America."
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> george conklin wrote:
>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>>>> other forms of exercise.
>>>>
>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>>>> every day.
>>>>
>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>>>> jog on?
>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>>>
>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
>>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
>>> mild occupational hazard.
>>>

>>
>> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people.
>> Why do you enjoy being so stupid?

>
> I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a
> fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle.
>
> "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves
> as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America."


You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and whatever
else you rant about. Sad person, you are.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
george conklin wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> george conklin wrote:
>>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>>>>> other forms of exercise.
>>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
>>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>>>>> every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
>>>>> jog on?
>>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>>>>
>>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
>>>> digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
>>>> mild occupational hazard.
>>>>
>>> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people.
>>> Why do you enjoy being so stupid?

>> I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a
>> fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle.
>>
>> "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves
>> as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America."

>
> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and whatever
> else you rant about. Sad person, you are.


Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking
your reasoning to its logical conclusion.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> george conklin wrote:
>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>>>>>>> other forms of exercise.
>>>>>> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
>>>>>> feet
>>>>>> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>>>>>> every day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>>>>>> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> jog on?
>>>>> The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>>>>> "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>>>>>
>>>>> George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
>>>>> ditch digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might
>>>>> have a mild occupational hazard.
>>>>>
>>>> You have just made all this up out of your hatred for real people.
>>>> Why do you enjoy being so stupid?
>>> I didn't make it up. You implied abusive stuff should be banned. I'm a
>>> fake person? Oh, I get it. I must be posting to Dan Quayle.
>>>
>>> "It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to
>>> ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real,
>>> America."

>>
>> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and
>> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are.

>
> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking about
> over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking your
> reasoning to its logical conclusion.


Nonsense.

Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban
poor
The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of the
puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3), they are typically addicted to
gutka (tobacco), alcohol and gambling. That is the culture of the
profession. It is a tough and violent life. The puller's wife would
typically be a maid-servant in a middle-class home, washing utensils and
clothes, sweeping and mopping.
 
G

george conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> ...
>>> You are the only one who spoke of banning carpentry, mechanics and
>>> whatever else you rant about. Sad person, you are.

>>
>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking
>> your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

>
> I wouldn't expend a whole lot of effort on getting him to understand this
> point.


Pedicabs exploit the workers, and there is no point in comparing them to
carpenters or joggers.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
....
>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking
>> your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

>
> Nonsense.
>
> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban
> poor
> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of the
> puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),


We're talking about New York!

> they are typically addicted to gutka (tobacco), alcohol and gambling. That
> is the culture of the profession. It is a tough and violent life.


Not in New York.

> The puller's wife would typically be a maid-servant in a middle-class
> home, washing utensils and clothes, sweeping and mopping.


How do you manage to tie your shoes? Really.
 
J

Joe the Aroma

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 8:41 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I hate the cross posting but agree on the nature of rural living. My
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> LBS even are over 6 miles through hairy traffic and I moved to a
>>>>>> small
>>>>>> town to get away from the traffic. As for shopping, it can't be done
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> a bike unless the items are very small and local. This is due to the
>>>>>> American way of sprawl, and I can't fix it by becoming a target. The
>>>>>> bridges I have to cross have to be done one the sidewalk on one
>>>>>> (Freeway
>>>>>> and 65 MPH) and the other is not big enough to haul even a small
>>>>>> bicycle
>>>>>> trailer. When I need to buy a new A/C unit or refrigerator (big
>>>>>> appliance) good luck with a bike. Home improvement supplies are
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> big item. Electronics for my computer involves a 45 mile trip each
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to Sacramento or pay twice as much for a very limited selection.
>>>>>> We don't all live in big cities and don't want to be forced into it.
>>>>>> Some of us actually have to go to business meetings and those are
>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>> bicycle range. The other factor is how are the suits going to take
>>>>>> someone serious when they show up on a bicycle? I like to ride but in
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> business I have to put on a professional face. That's the way life
>>>>>> works
>>>>>> unless you are a city office drone.
>>>>>> Sorry, but a reality check is needed by some of the bike fanatics.
>>>>>> I try to drive my most economical car (35 MPG) on these trips but
>>>>>> won't
>>>>>> spend more than it is worth to buy a hybrid (yet, at least).
>>>>>> Bill (realistic) Baka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One weekend next month I have to go about 30 miles north west of here
>>>>> to photograph a wedding. The next day I need to leave first thing to
>>>>> drive about 200 miles to the east to get the kids to a lacrosse game.
>>>>> After the game, I'll probably keep going another 150 miles to go to my
>>>>> mother's house for a few days.
>>>>>
>>>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>>>> motorcycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Proving that any sane person with a family needs a car at least some of
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>>Because we fail to arrange our space in such a way that it can be
>>>avoided.
>>>

>> Given where Pat says he lives (and in fact where I live in rural Nova
>> Scotia), it is hard to do without a car. It would still be awkward
>> and limiting if I lived in the nearest town where I would be on the
>> every other hour transit line and have one bus a day to Halifax. I
>> would assume that this is true of most rural areas in North America
>> and Europe.

>
> But even in relatively urban areas we fail to arrange our space where
> living without a car would be feasible (in most cases...there are some
> exceptions).


Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems simple
enough to me.