Search results for:

In case the matter comes up again, I decided to go with caramel coloured Oury grips, which go surprisingly well (though not matching as such).

I'd still be keen to see any photos of bar tape on a flat bar.

I've searched not only this site but Google, repeatedly, trying to find pics of (a) any B17 users with flat bars; or (b) any flatbars with tape. If anyone is aware of any such pictures, I'd be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

Apologies to those who are offended by this thread. I'm just looking for ideas. It may be trivial but I'm struggling to fit the final piece in my jigsaw and appreciate the advice.

Really? Tape on a flat bar? Has it been done?

think you'll be hard pressed to get grips matching the leather seat, unless you go with leather grips / tape

Why not just white ones?

Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean a straight match - I was also interested in whether anyone had found a good complement.

Unfortunately, they're all a bit on the narrow diameter side for this:

http://www.dedaelementi.com/En/Products/Products_Detail.aspx?ProductIDMaster=648

Cool, I also saw these:

http://www.velo-orange.com/vo.html

Hi, once again, I'm embarrassed to be starting this thread but I'm really stuck for ideas.

On advice, I'm switching to a flatbar, thus prompting a need for grips. But I'm struggling to find any that suit my colour scheme of a light bluey-green and white bike with a honey Brooks saddle. Brooks make some but I'm not overly enamoured with them.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Snide comments also welcome.

03001231212

This is the Met Police for non-emergencies. I have used it a couple of times and keep the number stored in my mobile phone.

They were meant to have a new website up last friday. Thats gonna have loads more on it and meant to be up to date.
I dunno whats happened with it though?

I was in there on Wednesday and they said the new website was going up that night. Mystifying.

Pictures added just in case the auction disappears.

Yeah, he seems to have sold a few bikes but doesn't really know how to describe them. Who would sell a Condor with Campagnolo parts without giving some measurements?

my friend had his bike stolen yesterday (not fixed or ss) but thought I could at least try and get the word out as it is quite unique.If anyone sees it or sees it being sold please get in contact.It was stolen from around old st area.

custom condor road bike in white with the name 'michael koppelman' on the frame,obviously along with it being a beautiful bike it holds great sentimental value.

Just on the off-chance of there being some connection:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/condor-racer-bike-trek-cannondale-specialized_W0QQitemZ120542375997QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Bikes_GL?hash=item1c10e2b03d

The problem here is an equivocation of the word 'belief'.

In common parlance we would use 'belief system' to point towards religious belief.

So we might agree that atheism is a position on a single issue, but I would still not say atheism itself is bound up in a belief system of any kind, there may be some commonly associated ideas, but these are not necessary for atheism, and certainly not themselves a belief system in an meaning of the term other than simply a set of ideas.

To call atheism a belief system is to call being Lib Dem a belief system or a fan of ice hockey a belief system, it renders the word meaningless as it is universally applicable.

Tynan, I already explained this point. The law protects beliefs systems. It does not say that atheism or veganism is a belief system. But the guidance recognises that atheism may be a key part of a belief system for some atheists. To the extent that a person has such a belief system, the guidance suggests it is protected by the Bill.

It does not in anyway set up rights or benefits for persons on a categorical basis.

So the complaint that atheism is not necessarily a belief system is to miss the point, because the law only kicks in where there is such a belief system.

convicted bum rapers should be allowed Tofu.

Can I get that on a t-shirt?

Yes, but is Ted gay? ;P

That is a very fair point.

Yeah, that's cool. I guess we're not really converging on many issues here, other than that the Equality Bill is good if it lets vegan prisoners eat vegan food.

If I'm being honest, I feel bad for the vegetarian prisoners who are probably going to get stuck with vegan food because the prisons won't be bothered cooking separate meals. So no cheese or eggs for vegetarians for the term of their sentence.

Now that's a deterrent to breaking the law.

I'm really sorry to everyone else who must be bored out of their minds by this.

I thought that by engaging, I might persuade someone that the particular piece of legislation was not what some people seemed to think it was.

I think it may be better to stop now.

I know what the word means, it was after all me who used it, ...

That's always a guarantee that someone knows what a word means.

*No way ! You have me in a tangle with regard to my justified beliefs *

This really makes no sense. If you are referring to the [true] justified belief approach to what is knowledge then it is (a) out of place here and (b) not equivalent to using the word "epistemic".

You could convince me that there are things the state could make me do with physical force, but I suppose all we would be doing is kicking around the meaning of the word 'obligations'.

That's not what I meant. I meant that I could convince you that you owe obligations to people. Like an obligation not to stab everyone you pass with a knife.

But maybe you don't believe that because you think that the only liberty of any value at all is the right that everyone has to do whatever the fuck they want to other people?

Well firstly atheism and veganism are not a belief systems

To the extent that you are right, the Equality Bill is not interested in protecting them (as far as I understand it anyway). In other words, someone who merely doesn't like a certain type of food would not be protected. The E&HRC guidance merely proposes that for some people, a persons beliefs about how they perceive the world or how they ethically choose to live can go beyond supernatural powers and encompass other moral/ethical choices which may be just as important.

You think you are saying that there is a "dismantling of our rights" but this is about the tension between (what people might perceive to be their) rights.

E.g. Ted has a right to be gay. Bill thinks he has a right to employ who he wants. Ted works for Bill. Bill hates gays and doesn't want them working for him.

It works for all of these cases. This legislation is the state coming down on the side of some rights (freedom from discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, freedom of thought, freedom of religion) instead of others.

Epistemology is concerned with ways of knowing. It is not concerned with whether or not you happen to understand something ;)

Tosspot bit: me too, no worries at all. But you are pretty wrong here.

Obligations generally: too long, a debate for another time. But I bet I could convince you otherwise.

Vegan bit: it's really interesting that you say the state has too much involvement already. Most people when they say that mean that the state is already encroaching too much on our ability to do what we want and be who we are.

This kind of legislation is quite non-statist in that way, it basically includes the state telling itself to back off and not get involved. It is therefore not illiberal because it is an attempt to protect the negative liberty of individuals.

But maybe you don't like the state telling people who they can discriminate against? In that case, you are saying that the state shouldn't get involved when either (a) the state or (b) other persons want to behave a little capriciously.

State protection bit: you've already acknowledged a way in which vegans need state protection: prison food. There really might not be too many others. But the point is that belief systems like veganism and atheism can occasionally form the basis of unfair and unequal treatment and (on this basis) that it might be a good thing that they be protected as well.

Viva las vegans.

It doesn't affect my joy in the slightest.

Perhaps you meant jurisprudential.

And I wasn't making a general statement about law. In that regard, we do all have obligations all the time both to the state/society and to each other (though we're not on trial).

Rather, I was making a point about the nature of the law under discussion. Which is focused on acts of unequal treatment rather than giving extra benefits to particular groups.

In other words, the law is concerned with negative liberty, not positive benefits.

No way !

You have me in an epistemic tangle now, I didn't realise the law only came into play when it was needed, I thought we were all on a kind of permanent trial !

This is surprising news.

Not sure what's epistemological about it but I sense you're trying to back off from your earlier indefensible positions, which is fine by me, even if you are resorting to sarcasm to do it.

I wasn't even adopting it, just saying that there are negative comments made about pretty much any option that I might have, which makes decision making pretty tough.

It's not my comment, it comes from a guy at Brixton Bikes.