"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 44 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-07-2007, 01:24 PM

no spam <no@spam.net> wrote:

>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,

>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass.

>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day.

>> Pity that bikes arent that.

> Depends on where you are.

Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either.

> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing what
> looked thousands of bikes on a round about.

Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian.

> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total much less on the road at the same
> time.

So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.

So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

02-07-2007, 01:29 PM

Anonymous no spam wrote:

>
> Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
> front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
> their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
> even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the backup
> and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.
>

Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
want to hit others. Too messy.

Wayne

02-07-2007, 02:18 PM

In article <45ca52c1$0$4841$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

> Anonymous no spam wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
> > front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
> > their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
> > even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the
> > backup
> > and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.
> >
>
> Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
> kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
> want to hit others. Too messy.
>
> Wayne

Motorcyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians would all do well to assume
that drivers by and large are on the road to injure and kill others. No
lethally at-fault driver *ever* admits to a desire to kill his victim,
even when obviously impaired.

And there are no more vulnerable targets on the road than cyclists and
pedestrians (excluding animals, perhaps-- see how common is roadkill).
Given the statistics involved in interactions between larger vehicles
and their smaller prey, such a belief would be entirely justified,
hardly paranoid.

As a matter of fact, drivers themselves would do well to assume that
other drivers want to collide with them. It's called driving
defensively, and it is largely responsible for keeping drivers'
attention where it belongs: on the *job* of driving. It also motivates
intelligent drivers to improve their vehicular operational and strategic
skills. Nothing at all wrong with assuming that drivers are on the road
to injure or kill you. It's a much safer-- and perhaps more realistic--
attitude than any other.

Unless of course, you KNOW differently about everyone sharing the road
with you. Good luck with that.

(note: such beliefs and attitudes are no excuse for aggressive or
dangerous behavior behind the wheel; indeed they should be a constant
advisor *against* such action)

02-07-2007, 02:22 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>> oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think

>>> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him.

>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

> Simple

We'll see...

> Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect

Neither is bin laden.

> who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs.

Neither does bin laden.

> He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs

So did bin laden.

> to keep the people in fear.

So did bin laden.

> By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't going to make a political
> come back.

Just as true of bin laden.

>>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember,

>> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates,
>> many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed.

> Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced.

Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys.

> They were not the brains and political leader of the movement.

Pity about Saddam.

>>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases.

>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

> did that.

Nope.

>>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes martyr and hero for his
>>> cause.

>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

> See above

See above.

>>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will
>>> just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him.

>> We'll see...

> We have been seeing have we not?

Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent.

Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways.

>>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates?

>> It aint that way.

> Sure it is.

No it aint.

> How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes?

**** all.

> We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear.

Pity that isnt obtained that way.

>>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a smart person he can not be found even with a multimillion
>>> dollar reward on his head can't get
>>> out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to rally his troops?

>> Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing.

>> Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes with speeches.

> Sure they do.

You clearly dont know any of them.

> Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics.

You clearly dont know any of them.

> With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade from the fight.

You clearly dont know any of them.

The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes.

In spades with Afghanistan.

>> He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11

> yes he did, we just weren't listening.

No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches.

>>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing.

>> Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory.

> But you do have to wonder don't you?

Nope, not when he has gone out of his way to rub
the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead yet.

> Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips

You dont know that is true anymore.

> and is so smart that the US, UK, and others can't find him

Thats completely trivial to do if you dont do a damned thing.

> but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes?

Because thats the best way to ensure that he cant be found.

>>> After all its the FBI saying how each tape is really him.

>> No it isnt.

02-07-2007, 02:34 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote:

>
> Motorcyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians would all do well to assume
> that drivers by and large are on the road to injure and kill others. No
> lethally at-fault driver *ever* admits to a desire to kill his victim,
> even when obviously impaired.
>
> And there are no more vulnerable targets on the road than cyclists and
> pedestrians (excluding animals, perhaps-- see how common is roadkill).
> Given the statistics involved in interactions between larger vehicles
> and their smaller prey, such a belief would be entirely justified,
> hardly paranoid.
>
> As a matter of fact, drivers themselves would do well to assume that
> other drivers want to collide with them. It's called driving
> defensively, and it is largely responsible for keeping drivers'
> attention where it belongs: on the *job* of driving. It also motivates
> intelligent drivers to improve their vehicular operational and strategic
> skills. Nothing at all wrong with assuming that drivers are on the road
> to injure or kill you. It's a much safer-- and perhaps more realistic--
> attitude than any other.
>

More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
finally found you.

I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Wayne
Paranoia will destroy ya.

02-07-2007, 02:59 PM

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:28:06 -0500, gamer <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>jdoe wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:08:30 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well, that's the reasoning for allowing states to continue charging
>>>tolls on interstates back in the '50s, but one would think that by now
>>>those bonds have long since been paid off.
>>>
>>>
>>you're right most of the bonds have been paid off but when have you
>>ever seen a politician give up a cash cow like toll roads are?
>>
>>
>
>CT did.
and they are in the process of putting the tolls back on I95

02-07-2007, 03:24 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
>>> the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
>> obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
>> be less land available.
>
> Bill, pardon me for saying so, but LOL. I'd suggest using Mapquest or
> Google Earth and start zooming out from the city of your choice using
> the satellite view. Are you so stuck in the city that you think they
> take up a big percentage of the available land? I'm trying to imagine
> the number of people that would necessitate building on 99.9% of the
> available land. Just a thumbnail estimate would make that number
> somewhere in the trillions.

Land for housing, land for offices, and more land for cars. Much more
land for cars when the undeveloped countries start to be car junkies.
I used to have undeveloped fields around my house 4 years ago but that
big construction surge 2--3 years ago saw it all get developed with most
pre-fab houses. Now I have to ride an extra mile just to get past the
new developments.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-07-2007, 03:30 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
>
> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?

I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>> It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel
>> drive.
>
> Why not? The losses associated with turning the driving force to the
> wheels 90 degrees through the differential is one of the main reasons
> we don't have rear wheel drive cars any more (with the obvious few
> exceptions). Seems obvious to me that if you can get 40mpg out of a
> rear drive Falcon, you should be able to get more than that out of a
> FWD version. Heh.

Once again you have missed the point. Gearing is the way to do that and
on a front wheel drive you can't do ****. The cracker boxes they are
selling now are only front wheel drive because they are easier to put
together at the plant. More profit for them and damn near unmodifiable
for us. That is why I am on a quest for a 60's Falcon or Fairlane so I
can twiddle around with it. The only newer car I would mess with would
be a Mustang.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-07-2007, 03:35 PM

no spam wrote:
>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and
>>> euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>
>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>
> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
> allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
>
>
It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.
Care to comment on the obvious?
Bill Baka

02-07-2007, 03:35 PM

In article <45ca61f7$0$16965$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others!

It reflects the reality of the bloodstained public highways and byways
in the United States. Most of those big brown splotches on the pavement
are not from oil leaks.

> Yes, there are a very few psychotics out there.

Very few. What does that have to do with the fact that all studies and
data show that driving mishaps are among the leading cause of
unnecessary deaths and crippling injuries in the United States today?

> Am I going to assume they are after me?No. Should anybody assume
> that? No.

If you are using public roads, yes. That's where the fatalities and the
injuries and the massive property damage occur.

> If you did, then you'd have to yield inappropriately at every
> junction out of fear that the boogey man had finally found you.

Your premise is faulty. That any other driver on the road is a potential
killer is a *fact*, regardless of intent. It does not lead inevitably to
the behavior you describe.

> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
> don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
> So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Whatever works for you. When I am driving, I don't have time nor
appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
that they are (pick one or more: stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
which their (pick one or more: neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.

Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
AVOIDABLE.

That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.