Re: Dakota Ridge black diamond rated trail pictures - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

11-22-2006, 02:09 PM

LIBERATOR wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> LIBERATOR wrote:
>>> Beej wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 12:47 pm, "LIBERATOR" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>> I don't clip in and never have had a problem, in fact clips scare me,
>>>>> if you fall your bike is going to land on you, if I'm not mistaken..
>>>>> (never used clips so I imagine your bike does not disconnect if you
>>>>> fall/endo).
>>>> Until you get used to unclipping, you might fall over a few times.
>>>> I've watched my friends do it while they were learning.
>>>>
>>>> It's only partly about staying on the pedals--it's also about the power
>>>> you can get on the upstroke.
>>>>
>>>> I use toeclips. Cheaper than clipless, some upstroke power, keeps feet
>>>> on muddy pedals, and, most importantly to me since my bike is my
>>>> primary transportation, I can ride in my street shoes.
>>>>
>>>> And, having ridden bikes with clipless pedals, my opinion is: they
>>>> rule.
>>>>
>>>> -Beej
>>> Yeah I know about the upstroke being more constant power increasing
>>> performance, but I don't like being stuck to my bke, and I too once had
>>> the toe clips, and when I had them didn't notice the difference in
>>> performance.
>>>
>> Then you weren't using them
>> correctly.
>
> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>

You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
without clips.

11-22-2006, 02:14 PM

cc wrote:
> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>
>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>
>
> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
> without clips.

Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
has the money to even try clips?

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-22-2006, 02:22 PM

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>
>>
>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
>> without clips.
>
>
> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
> has the money to even try clips?
>

Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!

Matt

11-22-2006, 02:25 PM

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>
>>
>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
>> without clips.
>
> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
> has the money to even try clips?
>

You know, RAL, I just don't know. He is certainly ****ed up, but
considering I'd assumed originally that he didn't bike at all (and he
apparently does), I can't rule anything out. Not to mention that if he's
as desperate as he appears, he could lift a pair.

11-22-2006, 02:25 PM

MattB wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>> cc wrote:
>>
>>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
>>> without clips.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
>> has the money to even try clips?
>>
>
> Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!
>
> Matt

well, either, i guess. doesn't really change the argument. i meant clipless.

11-22-2006, 02:27 PM

MattB wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>> cc wrote:
>>
>>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
>>> without clips.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
>> has the money to even try clips?
>>
>
> Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!
>
> Matt

Clipless.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-22-2006, 03:00 PM

cc wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>>
>>> cc wrote:
>>>
>>>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
>>>> without clips.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
>>> has the money to even try clips?
>>>
>>
>> Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> well, either, i guess. doesn't really change the argument. i meant
> clipless.

Just a pet peeve of mine. I understand when non-cyclists confuse the two
since the names are potentially misleading. We should know better.

It's like when people say "literally" when they mean "figuratively, but
a lot". Or "I could care less" when in fact they mean they _couldn't_
care less.

When I get my pea shooter and head for the clock tower, these will be
the things I'll be ranting about!

Matt

11-22-2006, 06:01 PM

MattB wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> MattB wrote:
>>
>>> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>>>
>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
>>>>>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs.
>>>>> you without clips.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think
>>>> Libby has the money to even try clips?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> well, either, i guess. doesn't really change the argument. i meant
>> clipless.
>
> Just a pet peeve of mine. I understand when non-cyclists confuse the two
> since the names are potentially misleading. We should know better.
>
> It's like when people say "literally" when they mean "figuratively, but
> a lot". Or "I could care less" when in fact they mean they _couldn't_
> care less.
>
> When I get my pea shooter and head for the clock tower, these will be
> the things I'll be ranting about!

>

Yeah, I'm like that also. e.g.
with use of I or me,
apostrophes (not
apostrophe's), improper or
excessive use of latin,
homonyms like they're, their,
and there or you're and your,
the phrase more importantly,
and southernisms like "may
can" and "might could".

11-24-2006, 01:34 AM

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> cc wrote:
> > LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
> >> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
> >>
> >
> > You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
> > without clips.
>
> Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
> has the money to even try clips?

You fat blubber beast, you fish eating monolith, you pansy MTB
imitator, don't you mock someone that outperforms you on astronomical
levels, the Mooses will not tolerate this behavior and will score
vengence for me on you next imitating MTB ride you make. You may very
well chase fishys to feed your plumpy flubber and pluck your plywood,
but you will not escape the Mooseys when they want to settle their
score you derelict of manhood.

> o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-24-2006, 01:36 AM

MattB wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> > cc wrote:
> >
> >> LIBBY the Homeless Wonder wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Oh. Well I don't think they improve anything, cuz I keep up with guys
> >>> that use clips just fine. Aint no difference in our performance eh...
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're an idiot. The meaningful comparison is you with clips vs. you
> >> without clips.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. He's not an idiot, he's a lunatic. Do you really think Libby
> > has the money to even try clips?
> >
>
> Are you guys calling clipless clips? Get your terms straight!
>
> Matt

Here here you pansy ass Penguin squadron member, Heil Plumpy Penguins!!