Wheelmasters?



Originally Posted by alienator .

I can't remember the article which referenced the chart and the source. I don't take notes on everything I read.

Continue to spray, old man
While you have sometimes provided meaningful contributions to the Forum, it seems that much of what YOU "spray" the Forum with that you think is meaningful, isn't ...

And, in this instance you persist in not addressing the lack of consistency in the matrix which you posted ...

FYI. NO single formula would satisfy the matrix which you posted ...
If YOU were capable of employing ANY critical thought then you might have realized that the there is no "scientific" basis for the matrix AND it is merely a cute chart which can be attributed to the arbitrary whim of the individual who created it ...

Maybe, one of these days, YOU will use some "critical thinking" before you "spray" the Forum with your cut-and-pasted and/or parroted posts!
 
alfeng said:
While you have sometimes provided meaningful contributions to the Forum, it seems that much of what YOU "spray" the Forum with that you think is meaningful, isn't ... And, in this instance you persist in not addressing the lack of consistency in the matrix which you posted ...  
[COLOR=006400]FYI.[/COLOR] [COLOR=FF0000] NO single formula would satisfy the matrix which you posted ...  [/COLOR]​
If YOU were capable of employing ANY critical thought then you might have realized that the there is no "scientific" basis for the matrix AND it is merely a cute chart which can be attributed to the arbitrary whim of the individual who created it ...  Maybe, one of these days, YOU will use some "critical thinking" before you "spray" the Forum with your cut-and-pasted and/or parroted posts!
No basis at all for your accusations or what you try to project. I never said there was any "scientific" basis for the chart. You'll note the chart was offered in reply to dhk2, and you'll also note that I said, "I think this chart follows that standard." I did not say, "I am absolutely positive this chart follows that standard." I cannot address any perceived or imagined inconsistency in the chart since I'm not absolutely certain of how it was compiled and am therefore not certain of what metrics were used. Refer to the the "I think this chart follows that standard" comment. You certainly have no evidence or history with which to judge "parroted" comments. You certainly haven't exhibited the tools to do so. You're so blind in your attack that you fail to see that you're not making any point. Maybe it's time to have your doctor increase your Aricept dose or at least have your wife wipe the spittle from your chin.
 
Dude, you sound just like Odumbo on the news today when he spewed his response to the Benghazi lies and IRS corruption. And like your fuhrer, Obummer, you've been busted. Keep backpedalling. You'll soon be back to the starting line at the rate you're going. Now, edumacate us, again, on how The Chartâ„¢ shows us how we can loosen our spokes 2-1/4 turns without affecting wheel deflection under loading...not that any mere human could possibly detect such a thing.
 
Originally Posted by alienator .


No basis at all for your accusations or what you try to project. I never said there was any "scientific" basis for the chart. You'll note the chart was offered in reply to dhk2, and you'll also note that I said, "I think this chart follows that standard." I did not say, "I am absolutely positive this chart follows that standard." I cannot address any perceived or imagined inconsistency in the chart since I'm not absolutely certain of how it was compiled and am therefore not certain of what metrics were used. Refer to the the "I think this chart follows that standard" comment.

You certainly have no evidence or history with which to judge "parroted" comments. You certainly haven't exhibited the tools to do so.

You're so blind in your attack that you fail to see that you're not making any point. Maybe it's time to have your doctor increase your Aricept dose or at least have your wife wipe the spittle from your chin.
You talkin' to me?

Are YOU talkin' to ME?!?

You must be talkin' to me ...

And, if so, then why do you ever ask ME to present anything-and-everything for which you are the arbiter of what is critical thinking or of having a scientific basis if YOU neither can nor do?!?

If you have such high expectations of what others say or post then why on earth would you post something which disavow after the fact when it is revealed to perhaps be possibly flawed ONLY AFTER it is revealed as possibly being flawed?

What a hypocrite ... what a _____ ...

FYI. dhk2 had been replying to me to which you added your 2¢ ...

  • so, you were replying to me indirectly as a doosh ...

Talk about "blind."

As far as parroting ...

So, now it takes "tools" to demonstrate your parroting?

Do you really want to know what you can't recall doing which you will subsequently just deny in one way or another?!?

Wait ...

  • In your own words "I [as in YOU] can't remember ..."


There are volumes of evidence IN YOUR OWN WORDS if you just read through your thousands of posts ...
Talk about spraying ... you've probably got enough doosh to work for a lawn service.
 
Yep, I responded to dhk2. The was response was to what he said, not you. See, in a thread when there are multiple participants, you can respond to any one without responding to the others. it's really simple, old man. I haven't disavowed anything that I've said in this thread. You can't find a single instance of me disavowing anything I've said in this thread. You're decompensating, girlfriend. It might be time for you to take a sedative. Please have the balls to actually say the words, alfie, instead of leaving things like this: ________.
 
"I haven't disavowed anything that I've said in this thread."

Talking points? Sure we revised the talking points! Twelve times!
 
I need a vacation... and a bike with strong wheels. (I have about 3000km on a pair of exal19's, on a 13.5kg bike, knocking pavements regularly, no problems)

http://www.exal.be/main.php?kat=3&sub=11&type=ZX%2019&offset=2

I also need a pair of wheels to use as hoola hoops whilst having "a" call girl (I am very monogamous) spraying champagne on me and I drink beer whilst wearing a pirate hat.



"You know something Rudy? You are like school in summer time..."



"I'll bust a cap in your ass":








[COLOR= rgb(68, 68, 68)]♪[/COLOR]"We can live in a cube in space I am sick to death of the human race"[COLOR= rgb(68, 68, 68)]♪[/COLOR]
 
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator

Yep, I responded to dhk2. The was response was to what he said, not you. See, in a thread when there are multiple participants, you can respond to any one without responding to the others. it's really simple, old man.

What?

Well, your circular deflecting lamentation is cute ...

So many attempts at misdirection & deflection ...

  • I think the Administration will be looking for a new Press Secretary in the near future ... and, YOU should probably put yourself up for consideration ...

Is your lamentation YOUR version of what can only be considered to be a non-cogent response?

WHAT WAS THIS EARLIER STATEMENT WHICH YOU MADE SUPPOSED TO MEAN IF YOU WEREN'T PUTTING THE CHART FORWARD AS BEING MORE THAN WHAT WE CAN ONLY NOW CONSIDER TO BE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?

  • Perhaps you are just unable to understand what that data means. The difference between what was once done and what is done now is that data supports what is done now.

If you don't think that a post which can be considered to be re-enforcing a point which someone else has made which had been made in response to particular post isn't also essentially a reply to the recipient of said post, well then perhaps you shouldn't post any more equivalents of a '+1', implied or actual, in the future.

Quote: Originally Posted by alienator

I haven't disavowed anything that I've said in this thread. You can't find a single instance of me disavowing anything I've said in this thread.

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]You're decompensating, girlfriend. It might be time for you to take a sedative.[/COLOR]


You cannot remember not remembering!?!

Again, your deflecting lamentation & churlish attack is more cute than not ... very much like what one would expect of a kindergartner.

Quote: Originally Posted by alienator

Please have the balls to actually say the words, alfie, instead of leaving things like this: ________.

REALLY?!?

WHY?

Too many options for you to consider?

  • You can use the following to make a finite list of all the possibilities which YOU can think of for adjectives which you have heard or read other use to describe YOU in the past ...
  1. 1. ______________
  2. 2. ______________
  3. 3. ______________
  4. 4. ______________
  5. 5. ______________
  6. 6. ______________
  7. 7. ______________
  8. 8. ______________
  9. 9. ______________
  10. 10. ______________
  11. 11. ______________
  12. 12. ______________
  13. 13. ______________
  14. 14. ______________
  15. 15. ______________
  16. 16. ______________
  17. 17. ______________
  18. 18. ______________
  19. 19. ______________
  20. 20. ______________
  21. 21. ALL OF THE ABOVE

After filling in all of the possibilities, choose option '21'.
Failure on YOUR part to fill out all of the blanks simply re-enforces the fact that you are best described as a hypocritical _____.
 
"Failure on YOUR part to fill out all of the blanks simply re-enforces the fact that you are best described as a hypocritical _____."

Red Foreman had another word for him...