Re: Thoughts on industrial design

On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:55:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 4/29/2025 5:27 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 22:54:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 4/28/2025 6:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 28 Apr 2025 16:47:54 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>
As for shifting on a bicycle, it's strictly personal preference and
not worth discussing.
>

I disagree this being a bike tech group well worth discussion even if it is
just preference.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
Roger Merriman

>
Very few, perhaps, no-one is going to change their minds about their
bicycling preferences in a forum of old, long-time bicyclists. Arguing
that "my way" is better than "your way" is irritating.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
I don’t think anyone is trying to change folks opinion or habits, but might
share experience and knowledge on different technologies, you’re definitely
over thinking this.

>
He's absolutely baffled by the concept of a discussion group, and he has
some weird ideas on the purpose of discussions in general.

 
With Krygowski, a "discussion" is how he seeks to satisfy his
narcissist need for attention...

>
:-) And what does our timid tricycle rider think he was doing with that
sentence? And with his interminable and compulsive carping at almost
every post I make?

I simply responded to the insult you directed at me. Otherwise, I
generally only mention you when you act out your narcissism.

Look at how he's gone on and on for weeks about guns and helmets,
repeating his arguments over and over to anybody who'd reply to them.
Often, in those boring tirades, he'll demand that anyone who disagrees
with him justify their opinions and preferences to him.

>
AFAIK I have never initiated a discussion on either guns or helmets.
When others (like Mr. Tricycle Rider) have done so, I have responded. I
generally respond with data, often with citations of online data easily
available, but sometimes with citations of peer reviewed scientific papers.

I didn't say you initiated them, I only said you'd gone on and on for
weeks repeating your arguments over and over to anybody who'd reply to
them.

But the scientifically illiterate can't tell "data" from "opinion." And
in their mind, "anecdote" (e.g. one scary story from thousands of miles
away) counts as "data."

That's from the guy that posted an anecdote about his imaginary friend
who he claimed to be a firearm designer...

least in the relevant topic; so I have no hope of changing their
opinion. Instead, I hope my writing will inform others who may be
reading but not posting.

Hoping that there are "others" who look at you, eh?

FWIW, despite Mr. Tricycle's claim, we have had instances where people
have changed their opinions based on factual posts here.

Perhaps, but I'll need to see documentation about anyone changing
their opinions because of anything you've suggested.

Is it odd that AFAIK the changes have always been in the direction
justified by data?

Another undocumented claim?  So soon after the previous one?

--
C'est bon
Soloman