Re: Most significant advance in bike technology for speed?

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 06:43:37 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 1/31/2025 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:24:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
 

On 1/30/2025 5:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:27:08 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:39:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 1/27/2025 6:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

>
Somebody told him that nobody likes braggarts and liars.

>
You reflexively cry "liar" anytime I mention having done something you
cannot or could never do.

>
Outside of standing in front of a classroom, something I am loath to
do, and a few other things where I got better results from doing
something different, what are some of the things you do that I cannot
do?
>
There are several people in RBT who have done things I cannot do. Tom
Kunick builds and rides bikes like I cannot do. Andrew Muzu rides
fixies, runs a bike shop, and rebuilds bikes like I cannot do. Junior
Carrington rides fixies and races bikes like I cannot do.
>
You see, unlike you, I am not afraid to admit to where I've been
bettered. It happens regularly to all of us.
>
There are many people who do things I cannot or could never do.
>
********   You are not on that list.
>
One the other hand, you and I both know I've done many things you
haven't done and cannot do.
>

You used to complain that I didn't provide
documentation. When I did provide documentation, you cried that I was
just bragging.

>
It's not documentation when you make claims about what you can do.
It's not documentation to relate what someone unknown person said
about you.  It's not documentation when you post what you say to your
imaginary friends.
>
Do you even understand what documentation is?
>
At the bottom of this post is some of your bragging. None of it is
documented.
>
Now go ahead and snip out parts of this post you are unable to respond
to and tell me, *with documentation,* what are some of these things
you do that I cannot or could never do?
>

Don't take any silence on my part for some sort of surrender. Interpret
it as resolution to not waste as much of my time responding to closed
minded, bitter old fools.

>
heh, heh, heh...  A whole lot of projection there from RBT's official
resident closed minded bitter old fool.
>

But I'll admit, sometimes I slip up.

>
Krygowski's undocumented brags:
>
"Am I qualified to talk about such things? Yes, by virtue of attending
multiple classes at various levels for each of the programs described
above. I've also acted as an editorial consultant on two well known
books dealing with those matters. I've written many articles on those
and related topics, and had some of them reprinted by publications in
other states and one other country. I no longer maintain the teaching
certification, but I've taught many cycling classes, I've written
scripts for and appeared in televised instructional spots, I've been
interviewed for newspapers and TV on such matters, and I've spoken (by
request) at city, regional and statewide gatherings."
>
"I've written articles about dogs vs. bikes, and I
was once quoted on the issue in _Bicycling_ magazine."
>
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
>
"I've been riding with this club for 35 years now. I've given
workshops and classes on riding, including group riding. I've written
articles on it for the club newsletter and for other publications.
I've had other cycling instructors compliment my riding, and say they
learned and improved by watching me. Just last night, one member took
me aside and asked me to give tips to a new member who obviously
needed advice on group riding."
>
"I ride as a competent adult on normal roads. I've taught others to do
that, and I've been recognized for such work. The remarks I posted
above were not bragging."
>
--Frank Krygowski

>
>
As I posted above.....
>
Now go ahead and snip out parts of this post you are unable to respond
to and tell me, *with documentation,* what are some of these things
you do that I cannot or could never do?
>
??????
>
.....  apparently he's gone back into his bubble

>
One persistent problem with trolls and other obnoxious Usenet posters is
this: When you ignore them, they think they've somehow won.
>

 
But he did "win" didn't he? You made a point of accusing him, of
belong a coward for carrying a gun -, I understand perfectly legal
where he lives, and he replied, rather vigorously, and you don't make
that accusation any more.
 
Trik guy - 1
  Frankie - 0
 

 By that perverted logic, tommy has won every argument hes ever made
when people stop responding to him.
>
This fucking idiot still thinks "the ar-15 was a weapon the military
never wanted and never used" even after being shown DARPA and
congressional reports showing the weapon was spec'd by the military who
bought 80,000 copies and used them for several years in vietnam before
changing the designation to M-16. I finally stopped arguing about it
because he simply a willfully ignorant troll who refuses to accept
blatant facts when shown. Does that mean he's right that "the ar-15 was
a weapon the military never wanted and never used" and "won" because I
stopped arguing about it.
>
No, john, not responding doesn't indicate "win". In this case it
indicates a realization that the argument is with a willfully ignorant
troll who cant live with the fact that he doesn't have the last word.

I agree it is a minor point but the AR-15  as currently manufactured
and sold in the U.S. IS NOT the version carried by the military in
Vietnam. In fact I'm fairly sure that disregarding the  very early
versions tested by Army Special Forces, they were all marked"M-16". At
least the one I was issued - very early 1960's - was marked that way.
--
Cheers,

John B.