On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>
> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>
> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.

But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
common.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>
>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>>
>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.
>
>But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
>than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
>house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
>your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
>common.

Nope, correlation does not show causation.

All the studies show is that people who get shot often have a gun
themselves.

On Tue, 23 May 2023 18:39:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>
><https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>"40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>
>That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.

I think it depends on what kind of a crowd it is. Perhaps at an NRA
meeting, it would be a higher percentage.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 01:12:27 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>>
>>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>>>
>>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.
>>
>>But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
>>than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
>>house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
>>your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
>>common.
>
>
>Nope, correlation does not show causation.
>
>All the studies show is that people who get shot often have a gun
>themselves.

Yup... many studies have shown....

Well, I did a bit of reading and find that
a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 19% of Americans
said they had a family member killed by a gun,"

It appears that the population of the US is some 334,805,269 and 19%
of that is 63,613,001. Statista tells me that there are some 84.23
million families in the U.S. so 84,230,000 divided by 63,613,001
witnesses is.... Goodness! 1 in every 1.324 families have a family
member killed by a gun? Terrible! Terrible!

And even more revealing. So 19% - 63,613,001 - witnesses claim to
have witnessed a gun homicide in the home, and the average number of
firearm homicides per year, 2015 - 2019, according the FBI statistics,
averaged 10,252 per annum, then obviously the study MUST have taken
place over a period of 6,204 years.

Yes Sirree, Them there studies!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 10:00:36 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:09:43?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I haven't mentioned anything about _me_ being fearful. If you dispute
> >> >that, find the post where I said that, and link to it.
> >>
> >> You proclaimed, incorrectly, that people who had guns in their homes
> >> were more likely to get shot.
> >
> >Stated with links to studies and statistics, dumbass. Your response? "<snivel> no their not".
> >
> Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
> coincide.
>
> Arkansas has a gun ownership of 57.9% and a gun homicide rate of
> 3.7/100,000. Idaho has a gun ownership of 56.9% and a homicide rate of
> 1.5. 1% fewer guns and less then half the firearm murders.
>
> North Dakota has gun ownership of 47.9% and firearm murder rate of
> 1.2./100,000 while Maine has a gun ownership of 22.6 and a homicide
> are of 1.2.
>
> The data is out there. All you have to do is look (:-)

Nice try jonny, Too bad those numbers don't actually address the issue.
1- the key phrase is "in the home"
2 - we aren't talking strictly abut homicides

I'll leave that there just to see if you actually get it - I'm guessing not..

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 10:25:21 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:00:28 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> ><funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:09:43?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >I haven't mentioned anything about _me_ being fearful. If you dispute
> >>> >that, find the post where I said that, and link to it.
> >>>
> >>> You proclaimed, incorrectly, that people who had guns in their homes
> >>> were more likely to get shot.
> >>
> >>Stated with links to studies and statistics, dumbass. Your response? "<snivel> no their not".
> <chuckle> People who get shot are likely to have guns themselves....
> >Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
> >coincide.
> >
> >Arkansas has a gun ownership of 57.9% and a gun homicide rate of
> >3.7/100,000. Idaho has a gun ownership of 56.9% and a homicide rate of
> >1.5. 1% fewer guns and less then half the firearm murders.
> >
> >North Dakota has gun ownership of 47.9% and firearm murder rate of
> >1.2./100,000 while Maine has a gun ownership of 22.6 and a homicide
> >are of 1.2.
> >
> > The data is out there. All you have to do is look (:-)
> <chuckle> People who get shot are likely to have guns themselves....

Which isn't the point, but you're even less likely to get it than john.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:44:27 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:17:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/23/2023 10:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
> > > coincide.
> >
> >Nobody here has ever claimed that gun ownership _necessarily_ means a
> >homicide will follow. That's not what data analysis says. In fact,
> >that's not the sort of statement that comes from any analysis of any
> >population data on any topic.
> >
> >You find a couple rural states with lots of two barrelled hunting
> >shotguns, and extrapolate to guns with high capacity magazines in cities
> >and suburbs. Those are not comparable.
> >
> >And there are people posting here who find some bit of outlier evidence
> >and think it refutes tens of thousands of data points.
> >
> >I'm guessing those people are the ones making the various state lottery
> >programs so profitable.
> Coorelation is not causation..

nope, never is....that's why you shouldn't worry about riding your tricycle over broken glass....dumbass.

>
> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.

no, that's _not_ what it says. Not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:45:32 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:09:43?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I haven't mentioned anything about _me_ being fearful. If you dispute
> >> >that, find the post where I said that, and link to it.
> >>
> >> You proclaimed, incorrectly, that people who had guns in their homes
> >> were more likely to get shot.
> >
> >Stated with links to studies and statistics, dumbass. Your response? "<snivel> no their not".
> >
> >> That's an admission that you fear
> >> having a gun in your home.
> >
> >Projection from the chickenshit afraid to ride without his gun.
> >
> >> >IOW, you're mimicking Kunich by either "remembering" wrongly or, more
> >> >likely, by deliberately lying.
> >> <LOL> Krygowski's gaslighting attempts are pathetic....
> >
> >We can add 'gasligting' to yet another concept the kitty the floriduh idiot doesn't understand.
> >
> >> >Again: You are afraid to claim a traffic lane when legal and necessary
> >> >for safety;
> >> Nope, I've done that.. more than once. It was a few years ago. I
> >> don't ride there any more.
> >
> >because you're afraid to.
> >
> >
> >> > that's what got you mad at me in the first place. You are
> >> >afraid to ride anywhere but on a paved bike trail in flat Florida.
> >> Nope... I routinely ride on rural roads. I did it just last Friday..
> >> >You
> >> >don't even have the courage to bike TO the trail.
> >> <LOL> Courage? No, it doesn't take courage, just a desire to stay
> >> off a nasty, potholed road or the cement sidewalk/bike trail alongside
> >> it. The sidewalk has a seam every few feet and several driveway
> >> depressions to traverse.
> >
> >OOOOHHH!!!! How scary!!!!! Seams in the roads and driveways!!!! Too bad your big bad gun can't protect you from those!!!
> >
> >> >You are afraid to do
> >> >even that riding without carrying a gun.
> >> A wise move, on my part, says the local LEO.
> >
> >Because they take one look a a guy on a tricycle with a gun and say "yeah, you should stay as far away from other people as possible"
> >
> >> >You are afraid to enter into
> >> >conversations with others when you ride.
> >> Huh? You can't converse when you're riding solo.
> >
> >You can if you weren't afraid of talking to other people you see when you ride, dumbass.
> >
> >> >No other poster here has all those limitations, which makes you our most
> >> >cowardly poster.
> >> Except you, who is afraid to attach your feet to the bike's pedals.
> >> It's not all that hard, maybe you could take some lessons.
> >
> >Sure, let's equate not being comfortable with clipless pedals with being afraid to ride without a gun, dumbass....Besides, you've repeated explained why you're afraid to ride with _out_ being clipped in.
> >
> >> > Don't claim to be tough and brave, it's not working.
> >> Never have..
> >>
> >> But then, unlike me, you've never gone off sailing in the Caribbean
> >> all alone for several months. Unlike me, you've never gone scuba
> >> diving amongst sharks. You've never been brave enough to hike and camp
> >> solo in the high Rocky Moutains where there are grizzleys, like I
> >> have. Have you ever surprised a moose and had her come after you?
> >
> >Taking lessons from the shit-stained irish troll now.....What's next? paratrooping into a war zone?
> >
> >> >And drop the psychological projection, attributing your own cowardice to
> >> >others.
> >> You've never had the courage to do anything the slightest bit
> >> adventurous. You're afraid of being alone. You need you're your social
> >> relationships like fish need water.
> >
> >Frank has documented (published) his extensive cycling experiences.
> <LOL> ...and riding a bicycle is so adventurous.

Many people consider it to be so, including me, asshole. If you don't think it is, why the fuck are you here?

So we have a floriduh dumbass writing in a public discussion forum (allegedly) dedicated to cycling, who hates interacting with people and ridicules the idea that cycling can be 'adventurous'. IOW - just another vapid troll who's life is so empty and meaningless he has to act out in a forum where he can't be banned.

Fucking useless....

On Wed, 24 May 2023 17:22:40 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 May 2023 01:12:27 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>>>
>>>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>>>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>>>>
>>>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>>>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.
>>>
>>>But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
>>>than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
>>>house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
>>>your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
>>>common.
>>
>>
>>Nope, correlation does not show causation.
>>
>>All the studies show is that people who get shot often have a gun
>>themselves.
>
>Yup... many studies have shown....
>
>Well, I did a bit of reading and find that
>a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 19% of Americans
>said they had a family member killed by a gun,"

Well, guess what? Even I have had family members killed by a gun. The
latest (that I am aware of) was my great granduncle, killed during the
civil war battle at Brandy Station in 1863. I also had a direct
ancestor, a fourth great grandfather killed during the U.S.
Revolution, I'm told, at Fort Ticonderoga.

>It appears that the population of the US is some 334,805,269 and 19%
>of that is 63,613,001. Statista tells me that there are some 84.23
>million families in the U.S. so 84,230,000 divided by 63,613,001
>witnesses is.... Goodness! 1 in every 1.324 families have a family
>member killed by a gun? Terrible! Terrible!
>
>And even more revealing. So 19% - 63,613,001 - witnesses claim to
>have witnessed a gun homicide in the home, and the average number of
>firearm homicides per year, 2015 - 2019, according the FBI statistics,
>averaged 10,252 per annum, then obviously the study MUST have taken
>place over a period of 6,204 years.
>
>Yes Sirree, Them there studies!

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 6:02:13 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:17:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 5/23/2023 10:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
> >> > coincide.
> >>
> >>Nobody here has ever claimed that gun ownership _necessarily_ means a
> >>homicide will follow. That's not what data analysis says. In fact,
> >>that's not the sort of statement that comes from any analysis of any
> >>population data on any topic.
> >>
> >>You find a couple rural states with lots of two barrelled hunting
> >>shotguns, and extrapolate to guns with high capacity magazines in cities
> >>and suburbs. Those are not comparable.
> >>
> >>And there are people posting here who find some bit of outlier evidence
> >>and think it refutes tens of thousands of data points.
> >>
> >>I'm guessing those people are the ones making the various state lottery
> >>programs so profitable.
> >
> >Coorelation is not causation..
> >
> >All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
> >shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
> Gee and wasn't it Frankie who was telling us that guns in the house
> made it more likely the you would die by a gun? And now when I
> demonstrate that "'tain't necessarily true", he changes his tune.

1) you didn't demonstrate that. You conflated gun ownership rate with homicide rate, and claimed it was the same - hint it isn't
2) Frank didn't change his tune. He maintained his position throughout all your flailing of unrelated information.

>
> Now it seems to be "if you have an AR in the house"... Strange isn't
> it that the FBI, who actually keep records about these sort of things
> say, "Nope tain't so" as hand guns are used in a vast majority of
> firearm homicides. To the extent that hands and feet were used in more
> homicides then any sort of rifle the last time I checked.
>
> So now Frankie will leap into the fray shouting "I didn't say it! "I
> didn't say it".
>
> A carefully reader might note that Frank has carefully deleted any
> reference to what he actually wrote, which is a great aid if one wants
> to deny what he has previously said (:-)

You can't edit a message once it's posted other than to completely delete it, dumbass. Frank hasn't deleted anything.

Franks position here has been clear and consistent. See if you can figure out what it is after he's only repeated it dozens of time.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:59:42 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 10:00:36?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:09:43?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I haven't mentioned anything about _me_ being fearful. If you dispute
>> >> >that, find the post where I said that, and link to it.
>> >>
>> >> You proclaimed, incorrectly, that people who had guns in their homes
>> >> were more likely to get shot.
>> >
>> >Stated with links to studies and statistics, dumbass. Your response? "<snivel> no their not".
>> >
>> Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
>> coincide.
>>
>> Arkansas has a gun ownership of 57.9% and a gun homicide rate of
>> 3.7/100,000. Idaho has a gun ownership of 56.9% and a homicide rate of
>> 1.5. 1% fewer guns and less then half the firearm murders.
>>
>> North Dakota has gun ownership of 47.9% and firearm murder rate of
>> 1.2./100,000 while Maine has a gun ownership of 22.6 and a homicide
>> are of 1.2.
>>
>> The data is out there. All you have to do is look (:-)
>
>Nice try jonny, Too bad those numbers don't actually address the issue.
> 1- the key phrase is "in the home"
> 2 - we aren't talking strictly abut homicides
>
>I'll leave that there just to see if you actually get it - I'm guessing not.

Are you for real?

I listed the gun ownership as a percent of the population. You argue
that they aren't in the home. So tell us where are these guns owned by
the population if not in the home? From above, 57.9% of the population
of Arkansas owns a gun. So tell us oh great and noble nitwit, where do
you think these guns are kept? Is there some giant locker in each town
where everyone stores their gun(s) so that they don't have to carry
them home?

Or maybe you believe that Arkinsawyers go out and spend $2,000 for a
nice deer rifle and leave it out in the car over night?

Or perhaps you didn't think at all.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 04:12:53 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:45:32?AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:09:43?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I haven't mentioned anything about _me_ being fearful. If you dispute
>> >> >that, find the post where I said that, and link to it.
>> >>
>> >> You proclaimed, incorrectly, that people who had guns in their homes
>> >> were more likely to get shot.
>> >
>> >Stated with links to studies and statistics, dumbass. Your response? "<snivel> no their not".
>> >
>> >> That's an admission that you fear
>> >> having a gun in your home.
>> >
>> >Projection from the chickenshit afraid to ride without his gun.
>> >
>> >> >IOW, you're mimicking Kunich by either "remembering" wrongly or, more
>> >> >likely, by deliberately lying.
>> >> <LOL> Krygowski's gaslighting attempts are pathetic....
>> >
>> >We can add 'gasligting' to yet another concept the kitty the floriduh idiot doesn't understand.
>> >
>> >> >Again: You are afraid to claim a traffic lane when legal and necessary
>> >> >for safety;
>> >> Nope, I've done that.. more than once. It was a few years ago. I
>> >> don't ride there any more.
>> >
>> >because you're afraid to.
>> >
>> >
>> >> > that's what got you mad at me in the first place. You are
>> >> >afraid to ride anywhere but on a paved bike trail in flat Florida.
>> >> Nope... I routinely ride on rural roads. I did it just last Friday..
>> >> >You
>> >> >don't even have the courage to bike TO the trail.
>> >> <LOL> Courage? No, it doesn't take courage, just a desire to stay
>> >> off a nasty, potholed road or the cement sidewalk/bike trail alongside
>> >> it. The sidewalk has a seam every few feet and several driveway
>> >> depressions to traverse.
>> >
>> >OOOOHHH!!!! How scary!!!!! Seams in the roads and driveways!!!! Too bad your big bad gun can't protect you from those!!!
>> >
>> >> >You are afraid to do
>> >> >even that riding without carrying a gun.
>> >> A wise move, on my part, says the local LEO.
>> >
>> >Because they take one look a a guy on a tricycle with a gun and say "yeah, you should stay as far away from other people as possible"
>> >
>> >> >You are afraid to enter into
>> >> >conversations with others when you ride.
>> >> Huh? You can't converse when you're riding solo.
>> >
>> >You can if you weren't afraid of talking to other people you see when you ride, dumbass.
>> >
>> >> >No other poster here has all those limitations, which makes you our most
>> >> >cowardly poster.
>> >> Except you, who is afraid to attach your feet to the bike's pedals.
>> >> It's not all that hard, maybe you could take some lessons.
>> >
>> >Sure, let's equate not being comfortable with clipless pedals with being afraid to ride without a gun, dumbass....Besides, you've repeated explained why you're afraid to ride with _out_ being clipped in.
>> >
>> >> > Don't claim to be tough and brave, it's not working.
>> >> Never have..
>> >>
>> >> But then, unlike me, you've never gone off sailing in the Caribbean
>> >> all alone for several months. Unlike me, you've never gone scuba
>> >> diving amongst sharks. You've never been brave enough to hike and camp
>> >> solo in the high Rocky Moutains where there are grizzleys, like I
>> >> have. Have you ever surprised a moose and had her come after you?
>> >
>> >Taking lessons from the shit-stained irish troll now.....What's next? paratrooping into a war zone?
>> >
>> >> >And drop the psychological projection, attributing your own cowardice to
>> >> >others.
>> >> You've never had the courage to do anything the slightest bit
>> >> adventurous. You're afraid of being alone. You need you're your social
>> >> relationships like fish need water.
>> >
>> >Frank has documented (published) his extensive cycling experiences.

Of course, a narcissist would have to do that...

>> <LOL> ...and riding a bicycle is so adventurous.
>
>Many people consider it to be so, including me, asshole.

<LOL>

adventure
1 of 2
noun
ad·?ven·?ture ?d-'ven-ch?r
Synonyms of adventure
1 a
an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks
a book recounting his many bold adventures
b the encountering of risks
the spirit of adventure
2 an exciting or remarkable experience
an adventure in exotic dining
They were looking for adventure.
3 an enterprise involving financial risk
wanted to pay off her debts before embarking on any new financial
adventures

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adventure

<CHUCKLE> What a monotonous life you must be having....

>If you don't think it is, why the fuck are you here?

Certainly not for adventure. Reading and talking about bicycle tech
doesn't seem very adventurous to me, but then, I've actually ventured
out beyond my mother's skirts a few times.

>So we have a floriduh dumbass writing in a public discussion forum (allegedly) dedicated to cycling, who hates interacting with people and ridicules the idea that cycling can be 'adventurous'.

Well, perhaps, bicycling down a hill at 60 MPH, but that wouldn't
require anything other than foolishness.

> IOW - just another vapid troll who's life is so empty and meaningless he has to act out in a forum where he can't be banned.
>
>Fucking useless....

On Wed, 24 May 2023 04:06:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:44:27?AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:17:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/23/2023 10:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Actually gun and ownership and firearm homicide do not necessarily
>> > > coincide.
>> >
>> >Nobody here has ever claimed that gun ownership _necessarily_ means a
>> >homicide will follow. That's not what data analysis says. In fact,
>> >that's not the sort of statement that comes from any analysis of any
>> >population data on any topic.
>> >
>> >You find a couple rural states with lots of two barrelled hunting
>> >shotguns, and extrapolate to guns with high capacity magazines in cities
>> >and suburbs. Those are not comparable.
>> >
>> >And there are people posting here who find some bit of outlier evidence
>> >and think it refutes tens of thousands of data points.
>> >
>> >I'm guessing those people are the ones making the various state lottery
>> >programs so profitable.
>> Coorelation is not causation..
>
>nope, never is....that's why you shouldn't worry about riding your tricycle over broken glass....dumbass.

Junior doesn't even understand the term..

>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>
>no, that's _not_ what it says. Not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.

That's exactly what it says, and nothing more, Dummy

On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:13:33 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 May 2023 17:22:40 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 May 2023 01:12:27 -0400, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>>>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>>>>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>>>>>
>>>>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>>>>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.
>>>>
>>>>But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
>>>>than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
>>>>house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
>>>>your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
>>>>common.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, correlation does not show causation.
>>>
>>>All the studies show is that people who get shot often have a gun
>>>themselves.
>>
>>Yup... many studies have shown....
>>
>>Well, I did a bit of reading and find that
>>a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 19% of Americans
>>said they had a family member killed by a gun,"
>
>Well, guess what? Even I have had family members killed by a gun. The
>latest (that I am aware of) was my great granduncle, killed during the
>civil war battle at Brandy Station in 1863. I also had a direct
>ancestor, a fourth great grandfather killed during the U.S.
>Revolution, I'm told, at Fort Ticonderoga.

Was he a Brit? I read that fatalities in the 1775 battle was 1
"American" and 48 British. There was a second battle in 1777 which the
Americans lost and casualties were said to be 18 Americans killed or
wounded and 5 British killed.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:50:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:13:33 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 May 2023 17:22:40 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 May 2023 01:12:27 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2023 22:11:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that people who get
>>>>>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>>>>>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd, 40% of
>>>>>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the premisis.
>>>>>
>>>>>But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun owners is higher
>>>>>than 40%. Study after study has shown that if you have a gun in the
>>>>>house you are more likely to be shot, most likely by by your mate or
>>>>>your family member. The boogeyman bursting through the door is far less
>>>>>common.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope, correlation does not show causation.
>>>>
>>>>All the studies show is that people who get shot often have a gun
>>>>themselves.
>>>
>>>Yup... many studies have shown....
>>>
>>>Well, I did a bit of reading and find that
>>>a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 19% of Americans
>>>said they had a family member killed by a gun,"
>>
>>Well, guess what? Even I have had family members killed by a gun. The
>>latest (that I am aware of) was my great granduncle, killed during the
>>civil war battle at Brandy Station in 1863. I also had a direct
>>ancestor, a fourth great grandfather killed during the U.S.
>>Revolution, I'm told, at Fort Ticonderoga.
>
>
>Was he a Brit? I read that fatalities in the 1775 battle was 1
>"American" and 48 British. There was a second battle in 1777 which the
>Americans lost and casualties were said to be 18 Americans killed or
>wounded and 5 British killed.

I don't know.

I know he was born and raised in America, but many americans fought on
the side of the British. I've read claims either way. It seems that he
did fight with the British against the French so he might well have
stayed with them during the revolution.

I also read that he was killed at the Battle of New York. I've read
supposed quotes from his imediate family members that he didn't come
home from the war.

On 5/23/2023 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/23/2023 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:23 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> All the tens of thousands of data points show is that
>>> people who get
>>> shot, are likely to have guns themselves.
>>
>> <https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/09/17/how-many-gun-owners-united-states-explainer/>
>>
>> "40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who
>> does"
>>
>> That means if someone randomly shoots into an adult crowd,
>> 40% of
>> those hit well be either gun owners or have a gun on the
>> premisis.
>
> But somehow, the percentage of gun victims who are gun
> owners is higher than 40%. Study after study has shown that
> if you have a gun in the house you are more likely to be
> shot, most likely by by your mate or your family member. The
> boogeyman bursting through the door is far less common.
>

Not surprising. People with good reason to arm themselves
are, ipso facto, at higher risk.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
>> wrote:
>>
Huge snips
>
> Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
> really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
> Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
> are detrimental.
>
> It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
> examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
>
> The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
> the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
> advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements.
>
> Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
> cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
>
No one is, I’ve never had a Carbon Fibre bike nor realistically likely to,
disks well as others I’ve always wanted better brakes both MTBing and on
road.

Less chain rings does seem to be less faff which more cogs at back allows
plus bigger range and so on, but again I’m on 10s and not alone in this.

Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.

Helmets it’s part of the uniform as you where, but I’m not bothered by them
either way, I’m aware that their protection is limited but certainly the
MTB ie peaked one’s are useful in other ways.

Roger Merriman

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:41:33?AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 2023-05-23, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > >>> On 5/22/2023 4:04 PM, pH wrote:
> >> > >>>> On 2023-05-21, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 10:29:12?PM UTC-4, pH wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> I remember a Grant Peterson who I believe started Bridgestone
> >> >bicycles in the USA.
> >> > >>>>>> I believe Grant *worked* for Bridgestone and left to open
> >> >Rivendell Bicycle
> >> > >>>>>> works up near Concord, CA somewhere. I'm assuming he's still in
> >> >business.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> He is. Running the company, also blogging.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Oh good. I used to love his "Rivendell Reader" but lost track of
> >> >it when he
> >> > >>>> went electronic. Just no fun reading from a screen in bed.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> I gave the kindle my brother gave me to my daughter, gave the cell
> >> >phone
> >> > >>>> back, etcetera.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> pH "Luddite" Aptos, CA
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> You might like yesterday's article by Tish Harrison Warren, titled "We
> >> > >>> should be more 'Amish' about technology." She suggested that instead of
> >> > >>> compulsively adopting each new tech trend, we should evaluate whether
> >> > >>> it's really valuable for us, good for society, etc. "'Blessed are the
> >> > >>> early adopters’ is not a wise rule for living."
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> You'll probably hit a paywall, but you can try this link:
> >> > >>>
> >> >https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/21/opinion/technology-teenagers-religion.html
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I did indeed hit the paywall but I got the gist of it and she's
> >> >preaching to
> >> > >> the choir.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I was an early adopter w/ my Apple ][+ w/ beloved CP/M card (Z80's
> >> >and WordStar
> >> > >> forever) but about the time the '486 came out I was beginning to see the
> >> > >> handwriting on the wall.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Well, I'll start ranting if I keep going....
> >> > >>
> >> > >> pH in Aptos
> >> > >
> >> > > But the Apple II+ was a vast improvement over what else was available
> >> > > at the time (:-)...
> >> > >
> >> > > I brought my Apple II into the office and wrote a Basic Language
> >> > > program to keep track of material orders for a production barge
> >> > > project we had in the Java sea and it worked great....
> >> > >
> >> > > Once we got Word Star working the secretary would just laugh. Edit a
> >> > > two page letter and she'd bring the corrected copy back in about 10
> >> > > minutes (:-)...
> >> > > And, the company became computerized and I became the Computer Man
> >> > > (:-)
> >> >
> >> >The article wasn't talking against using computers in productive ways..
> >> >The author (a journalist) began by discussing the detrimental effects on
> >> >her family of her own Twitter use. She felt compelled to use Twitter as
> >> >part of her career, but later decided it was so addicting that it
> >> >damaged relationships.
> >> >
> >> >Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
> >> >really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
> >> >Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
> >> >are detrimental.
> >> As if she actually knew which technology is beneficial to other
> >> people.
> >> >It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
> >> >examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
> >> Most people already do that without sanctmonious advice from do-gooder
> >> central.
> >> >The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
> >> >the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
> >> >advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements..
> >> No, the alternative is to ignore unsolicited advice.
> >> >Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
> >> >cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
> >> You buy what you want, and I'll buy what I want. Why I buy what I buy
> >> is none of your, or her business.
> >
> >I find the responses of Frank to show why he became a teacher rather than try and provide the world with competent skills.
> Those that can, do, those that can't, teach?

Teaching is a much easier job than actually working at a craft.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:49:35 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> Huge snips
> >
> > Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
> > really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
> > Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
> > are detrimental.
> >
> > It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
> > examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
> >
> > The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
> > the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
> > advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements.
> >
> > Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
> > cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
> >
> No one is, I’ve never had a Carbon Fibre bike nor realistically likely to,
> disks well as others I’ve always wanted better brakes both MTBing and on
> road.
>
> Less chain rings does seem to be less faff which more cogs at back allows
> plus bigger range and so on, but again I’m on 10s and not alone in this.
>
> Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
> fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
> often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
> of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.
>
> Helmets it’s part of the uniform as you where, but I’m not bothered by them
> either way, I’m aware that their protection is limited but certainly the
> MTB ie peaked one’s are useful in other ways.
>
> Roger Merriman

I am of the opinion that 9 speeds was all you needed on the back and if you were the sort that needed very low climbing gears you used a triple on the front. Now you can prevent the triple slipping to the inside with a dog fang with completely ends that sort of problem. The more I ride my 11 or 12 speed bikes the less I like the continuous fiddling with the shifting. My 9 speeds were quite reliable and didn't need messing with all of the time.

On 5/24/2023 9:56 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:41:33?AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-05-23, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 4:04 PM, pH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-21, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 10:29:12?PM UTC-4, pH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I remember a Grant Peterson who I believe started Bridgestone
>>>>> bicycles in the USA.
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Grant *worked* for Bridgestone and left to open
>>>>> Rivendell Bicycle
>>>>>>>>>>> works up near Concord, CA somewhere. I'm assuming he's still in
>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is. Running the company, also blogging.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh good. I used to love his "Rivendell Reader" but lost track of
>>>>> it when he
>>>>>>>>> went electronic. Just no fun reading from a screen in bed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I gave the kindle my brother gave me to my daughter, gave the cell
>>>>> phone
>>>>>>>>> back, etcetera.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pH "Luddite" Aptos, CA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might like yesterday's article by Tish Harrison Warren, titled "We
>>>>>>>> should be more 'Amish' about technology." She suggested that instead of
>>>>>>>> compulsively adopting each new tech trend, we should evaluate whether
>>>>>>>> it's really valuable for us, good for society, etc. "'Blessed are the
>>>>>>>> early adopters’ is not a wise rule for living."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You'll probably hit a paywall, but you can try this link:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/21/opinion/technology-teenagers-religion.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did indeed hit the paywall but I got the gist of it and she's
>>>>> preaching to
>>>>>>> the choir.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was an early adopter w/ my Apple ][+ w/ beloved CP/M card (Z80's
>>>>> and WordStar
>>>>>>> forever) but about the time the '486 came out I was beginning to see the
>>>>>>> handwriting on the wall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I'll start ranting if I keep going....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pH in Aptos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the Apple II+ was a vast improvement over what else was available
>>>>>> at the time (:-)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I brought my Apple II into the office and wrote a Basic Language
>>>>>> program to keep track of material orders for a production barge
>>>>>> project we had in the Java sea and it worked great....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we got Word Star working the secretary would just laugh. Edit a
>>>>>> two page letter and she'd bring the corrected copy back in about 10
>>>>>> minutes (:-)...
>>>>>> And, the company became computerized and I became the Computer Man
>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The article wasn't talking against using computers in productive ways.
>>>>> The author (a journalist) began by discussing the detrimental effects on
>>>>> her family of her own Twitter use. She felt compelled to use Twitter as
>>>>> part of her career, but later decided it was so addicting that it
>>>>> damaged relationships.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
>>>>> really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
>>>>> Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
>>>>> are detrimental.
>>>> As if she actually knew which technology is beneficial to other
>>>> people.
>>>>> It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
>>>>> examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
>>>> Most people already do that without sanctmonious advice from do-gooder
>>>> central.
>>>>> The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
>>>>> the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
>>>>> advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements.
>>>> No, the alternative is to ignore unsolicited advice.
>>>>> Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
>>>>> cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
>>>> You buy what you want, and I'll buy what I want. Why I buy what I buy
>>>> is none of your, or her business.
>>>
>>> I find the responses of Frank to show why he became a teacher rather than try and provide the world with competent skills.
>> Those that can, do, those that can't, teach?
>
> Teaching is a much easier job than actually working at a craft.
>

There are a lot of people employed in 'Higher Education'.
As with many careers, the position becomes what you make it:

https://nypost.com/2023/05/23/disturbing-video-shows-machete-wielding-nyc-professor-chase-post-reporter-photographer/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:49:35 PM UTC+2, Roger Meriman wrote:.
>
> Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
> fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
> often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
> of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.

I never thought I would but I really like my radar rear light in only radar mode. Very usefull and more convenient and less dorky as a helmet rear view mirror.

Lou

On 5/24/2023 10:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:49:35 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> Huge snips
>>>
>>> Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
>>> really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
>>> Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
>>> are detrimental.
>>>
>>> It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
>>> examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
>>>
>>> The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
>>> the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
>>> advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements.
>>>
>>> Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
>>> cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
>>>
>> No one is, I’ve never had a Carbon Fibre bike nor realistically likely to,
>> disks well as others I’ve always wanted better brakes both MTBing and on
>> road.
>>
>> Less chain rings does seem to be less faff which more cogs at back allows
>> plus bigger range and so on, but again I’m on 10s and not alone in this.
>>
>> Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
>> fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
>> often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
>> of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.
>>
>> Helmets it’s part of the uniform as you where, but I’m not bothered by them
>> either way, I’m aware that their protection is limited but certainly the
>> MTB ie peaked one’s are useful in other ways.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> I am of the opinion that 9 speeds was all you needed on the back and if you were the sort that needed very low climbing gears you used a triple on the front. Now you can prevent the triple slipping to the inside with a dog fang with completely ends that sort of problem. The more I ride my 11 or 12 speed bikes the less I like the continuous fiddling with the shifting. My 9 speeds were quite reliable and didn't need messing with all of the time.
>

Although Stalin did have a point when he said, "Quantity is
it sown quality.", you have to admit that the Campagnolo 12
system is remarkably better in many ways compared to
Campagnolo 9. And you can't use the other 12 equipment with
a nine cassette, so there's that.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:42:04 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:49:35 PM UTC+2, Roger Meriman wrote:.
> >
> > Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
> > fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
> > often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
> > of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.
> I never thought I would but I really like my radar rear light in only radar mode. Very usefull and more convenient and less dorky as a helmet rear view mirror.
>
> Lou

I prefer the mirror because it allows me to SEE which lane as well as how fast cars are approaching. Now my mirror appears to be jumping around a great deal as my speeds get higher, but then the approaches tend to be relatively slower. Near the bottom of a local hill I move into middle of the road because the approaching cars are near my speed and have another lane to move into.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:45:42 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 10:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 7:49:35 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 5/23/2023 2:42 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 05:09:40 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >> Huge snips
> >>>
> >>> Her point was that not all technology is beneficial to the things that
> >>> really matter in life. She mentioned some religious groups (not just
> >>> Amish) that put thought into which technologies are beneficial and which
> >>> are detrimental.
> >>>
> >>> It's not that they reject all technology. Instead, they attempt to
> >>> examine benefits vs. detriments and make rational decisions.
> >>>
> >>> The alternative is to slavishly jump on every new technology, based on
> >>> the latest fashion trends, or based on the glowing testimonials of
> >>> advertisers and reviews in magazines paid to carry the advertisements..
> >>>
> >>> Twitter. TikTok. Snapchat. Disc brakes. Carbon fiber. Yet another rear
> >>> cog. Radar taillights. Foam hats. Whatever.
> >>>
> >> No one is, I’ve never had a Carbon Fibre bike nor realistically likely to,
> >> disks well as others I’ve always wanted better brakes both MTBing and on
> >> road.
> >>
> >> Less chain rings does seem to be less faff which more cogs at back allows
> >> plus bigger range and so on, but again I’m on 10s and not alone in this.
> >>
> >> Radar lights, does seem to work well ie warns of cars approaching very
> >> fast, but while cool technology I have no use for it. My road riding is
> >> often on roads I like which tends to be quieter roads, that’s the advantage
> >> of the Gravel bike you can pick and choose.
> >>
> >> Helmets it’s part of the uniform as you where, but I’m not bothered by them
> >> either way, I’m aware that their protection is limited but certainly the
> >> MTB ie peaked one’s are useful in other ways.
> >>
> >> Roger Merriman
> >
> > I am of the opinion that 9 speeds was all you needed on the back and if you were the sort that needed very low climbing gears you used a triple on the front. Now you can prevent the triple slipping to the inside with a dog fang with completely ends that sort of problem. The more I ride my 11 or 12 speed bikes the less I like the continuous fiddling with the shifting. My 9 speeds were quite reliable and didn't need messing with all of the time..
> >
> Although Stalin did have a point when he said, "Quantity is
> it sown quality.", you have to admit that the Campagnolo 12
> system is remarkably better in many ways compared to
> Campagnolo 9. And you can't use the other 12 equipment with
> a nine cassette, so there's that.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Without a doubt the shifting mechanism on the 12 speed Campy is all hell and gone better and the construction of the chains greatly improved. And the longer upper arm on the rear derailleur give wider ratios possible. But as for speeds, I would be willing to bet I don't use more than 6 gears big and small ring on even the most difficult rides.

On 5/24/2023 7:06 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:44:27 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:17:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And there are people posting here who find some bit of outlier evidence
>>> and think it refutes tens of thousands of data points.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing those people are the ones making the various state lottery
>>> programs so profitable.
>> Coorelation is not causation..
>
> nope, never is....that's why you shouldn't worry about riding your tricycle over broken glass....dumbass.

And smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, drinking water quality
has nothing to do with cholera, looking both ways doesn't make crossing
the street safer ...

I'd have thought it would be tiring to maintain such a high level of
ignorance. But I guess it comes naturally to some.

--
- Frank Krygowski