Search results for:

Sparky This isn't cool. The guy wrote a piece that you disagree with and you call him, a friend of mine, a knob.

Yes.

Sparky If we were all sitting in a pub talking about this you wouldn't say that to his face, and I don't see why you feel justified in doing it now.

Because we are not sat in the pub face to face is it easier the call him a knob, is that so hard to understand ?

Let's go killing !

dogsballs he should come to bike polo and see how "dangerous" said bikes are. just because some knob can't ride/control a fixed bike, doesn't mean the people who do can't.

There you go again with your personal attacks ! 'Knob'

I think it is pretty poor to resort to personal attacks against the writer of a an argument you do not subscribed to, ad hominem is no replacement for a well formed counterargument.

But in this case you are right, the bloke is a knob.

kipsy excellent.....thats my afternoon taken care of, thanks tynan.

What the hell are you doing posting here, get back over to treehugger right now you have another 400 votes to cast.

velocity boy I don't get paid to do this and if you really want me to do that I will charge you my hourly rate, which will be nice for me as I could get that new Dual format HD/BD DVD player I've been looking at.

Actually, maybe I can live with the speeling mistsakes.

May I be the first to point out that you can vote any number of times in the attached asinine poll.

If you have the time to fuck it up (and feel the need) then you simply hit refresh and revote.

Cycling does not need another critic like this.

Sparky I just wanted to point out that it was the opinion of one writer.

My comments were directed at the very same writer/article.

velocity boy Lunch.

Do you think I'm employed to sit on here and tend to your requests or something?

Yes.

It has been brought to my attention that there are a number of spelling mistakes in some of my posts, could you see to it that they are all corrected.

Thanks

T.

Object17 Thanks Tynan.

I love you like my own child.

Sparky . . . My point was just that not everyone is an expert on everything. . .

This is an excuse for poor writing ?

Sparky Tynan, 'they' include around 30 writers, at least one of which rides a fixed.

That's great, how does it relate to my comments ?

I think it is fairly uncontroversial to call the writer of the article and the editors / administrator who commission / publish they piece 'they'.

I am surprised they did not ask the fixed gear cyclist in their midsts for his or her input.

The article could have come from the pages of the Daily Mail.

Object17 I love being ranty :]

Good rant.

** treehugger** has gone down in my esteem for publishing online such a inaccurate and pointless single sided view of an area that they know little about.

The new Langster.

Idiotic article. Demagoguery plus factual error tends not to make great writing.

hippy 400k and 4 punctures. That's reason enough to hate them.

Is that 400,000 miles ?!!!

Are you saying you had a puncture every 100,000 miles !!

To me that's pretty good going :)

Or is that 400km ?

If so, maybe that is not so good :(

chris crash im thinking old lady loses an arm...

Exactly, and the kid gains a 650cc solid iron arrospok.

big daddy wayne Look it up, it's any easy one.

Dismissiveness Delivers Dissapointment - Define Definition Debatable

Define = make clear / establish / give the meaning of, you know the kind of thing.

:)

chris crash are you shure, that has an acordian, and acordians are older then time

Ok, now I am not so sure, accordion you say ?

big daddy wayne define "define"

Look it up, it's any easy one.

big daddy wayne //this is like a version of 'challenge anneka' - i do hope that tynan is jumping out of his philosophical helicopter wearing his bright yellow jumpsuit of enquiry//

I was looking for a picture of Anneka (I put 'challenge anneka' into goole) but instead I got this:

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

chris crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UV3kRV46Zs

defined

The egg.

Get some glue, a shoelace and a ten pence piece.

Glue the ten pence piece onto the end of the shoe lace, lace this up on one of your trainers leaving the ten pence dragging on the floor behind you.

Go into Maplins and pick up a set of digital calipers, go over to the counter and say 'excuse me someone has dropped some cash here' (pointing at the ten pence).

When the cashier comes around to pick up the money kick him in the head and run out of the shop with the calipers.

chris crash which came frist the chicken dance or the egg?

Define the chicken dance.

the-smiling-buddha Species is the 'accepted' way of catogorizing organisms

This is great news ! :) - (let's for the moment ignore the 'species problem')

I think you misunderstand my point, perhpas I have not put it very well.

Imagine a long line from left to right on a piece of paper, at the far left (the past) we draw a small sea slug (or whatever the chickens ancestor may happen to be) - on the far right (the present) we draw a modern chicken and ancestor of the featherless, wingless, beakless, non-oxygen breathing sea slug.

In between we draw (at convenient arbitrary intervals) the stages at which the slug evolves towards chicken.

For the chicken/egg question to be approached, you much first tell me at what place on our piece of paper you would see the creature as a 'chicken', the sea slug ? - too far back perhaps, the modern 'chicken' ?, some stage shortly after the sea slug had left the sea and exchanged it's gills for lungs ? the chicken that first appeared in the 1800s ?, the 1970's ? 16,000 B.C ?

Tell me what you are calling a chicken and I will show you the egg it came from, (unless you think that a creature can change species after the zygote is made?) - if you insist that the 'chicken' egg must come from a 'chicken' then you must revise your place (backwards) on the time line where you believe what we call a 'chicken' first appeared.

The fact that you very quickly run into the problem of infinite regress should be a clue here !

the-smiling-buddha by this reckoning you need two chickens to produce an egg

Define 'chicken' and you will see why this is wrong.

chris crash the chicken and egg thing was a joke,

Same question as the forest/sound one really, equivocation/definitions.

chris crash what i find interesting is the question is really a test of the anthrope-centralism of the person being asked.

some one who is anthrope-centric would say there is no sound because there is no human to hear it, some one who is not anthrope-centric would say there is a sound because there is a sound wave. so although it is a question of definition, it is in fact the definition that answers the question.

Like I said 'To answer the question simply define 'sound'.'