rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=enrec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Some hot T&A action - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0a452745a1ef516b?hl=en
* Religioustard Jour prayed for Japan after those little earthquakes last week.
- 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4046655609e22cb2?hl=en
* God to Jobst-Wear a Helmet - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/920f3f5ae6aa9253?hl=en
* Lance news. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/82ac2aada2a8cea9?hl=en
* Finally some nutritional advice for all RBR's - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e831685b1751ed77?hl=en
* Pantani:Belushi::Ricco:Farley - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5144f25745775c36?hl=en
* Warming up for elite athletes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1ad5cb395c0f8cd6?hl=en
* spoiler alert: actually about racing! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9e8b9b93a1070dab?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some hot T&A action
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0a452745a1ef516b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 13 2011 11:25 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"
"Anton Berlin" <truth_88888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a01d09e-f439-4db9-844a-172524e11db7@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Great finish at tirreno-adriatico today. Worth finding the video if
> you didn't see it already.
You have to wonder how much Amador had left in the tank if he can get back
up there and contest the finish after having been caught with 200m to go. It
would have taken less effort had he drilled it all the way to the line, but
it was one of those tactical issues where he was more concerned with
Malacarne sitting on his wheel than being caught by the chasing pack.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 7:46 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 14, 1:25 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> "Anton Berlin" <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1a01d09e-f439-4db9-844a-172524e11db7@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Great finish at tirreno-adriatico today. Worth finding the video if
> > you didn't see it already.
>
> You have to wonder how much Amador had left in the tank if he can get back
> up there and contest the finish after having been caught with 200m to go. It
> would have taken less effort had he drilled it all the way to the line, but
> it was one of those tactical issues where he was more concerned with
> Malacarne sitting on his wheel than being caught by the chasing pack.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
finishes like these will be more likely without radios in my guess.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Religioustard Jour prayed for Japan after those little earthquakes last
week.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4046655609e22cb2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 12:50 am
From: RicodJour
On Mar 14, 1:15 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just reviewing this thread. I suggest to all of you that you read "The
> God Delusion" by Dawkins, if you haven't already.
From the Wiki article on it:
"Since there are a number of different theistic ideas relating to the
nature of God(s), Dawkins defines the concept of God that he wishes to
address early in the book. Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract,
impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza
or Einstein) from a personal God who is the creator of the universe,
who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped."
and
"Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty.
Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations
are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and
omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the
theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a
universe with a God."
I have no issue with any of that, except some quibbling, but it does
go to my whole point - no one can prove anything about God one way or
the other. On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
The differentiation in my mind is whether an individual is willing to
be an asshole to promote and convert to their way of thinking. I
don't like salesmen.
R
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 12:57 am
From: "H. Fred Kveck"
In article <bb85036a-e70f-4f5f-a624-92239c79e052@q14g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
> organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
"I vant ya close, ya boots and ya motazycle." That was believable. Not sure it was
in English, though...
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:12 am
From: Simply Fred
RicodJour wrote:
>> On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
>> organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
H. Fred Kveck wrote:
> "I vant ya close, ya boots and ya motazycle." That was believable. Not sure it was
> in English, though...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-H55V_oma0>
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:12 am
From: Simply Fred
Anton Berlin wrote:
> I am certain all of the worlds religions have it wrong. I am an
> agnostic non-theist that also believes that the world is better off
> with religion due to what's known as Skycake.
At least the Rastafarian's get to smoke some good shit.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:21 am
From: Simply Fred
Simply Fred wrote:
>> Do you attempt to convert, forcibly if necessary, other cycling fans to
>> Believe in Jens ?
>>
>> Do you think it your duty to brainwash any offspring you may bestow unto
>> the world to also Believe in Jens ?
RicodJour wrote:
> Do you know any parents that don't try to teach there kids what they
> feel is right? I mean, besides snakes and lizards. This is the
> function of parents, and yes, I realize that it is a two-edged sword.
> As long as that two-edged sword is sheathed in a scabbard of civility
> and acceptance of those of different appearance/beliefs/capabilities,
> it's not a problem.
Perpetuation of superstition, ignorance and hatred of everybody
that does not belong to your tribe must presumably be the answer
to some question.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 3:39 am
From: Simply Fred
>> Simply Fred wrote:
>>>> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
>>>> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
>> A more accurate analogy would be the hypothesis by Aristotle which
>> persisted through Newtons time up to the early 20th century that light
>> travels through "aether" in space. However there is no need for ether
>> for light waves (or particles if you're feeling corpuscular like any
>> good FM) so ether is an unnecessary hypothesis just like god.
RicodJour wrote:
>
>> And as to life on other planets, you may not be able to say for sure (as
>> yet) but given the seeming abundance of planets including earthlike
>> rocky planets and the occurrence of carbon based amino acids even on
>> meteorites (oddly it seems mostly left-handed amino acids) you could
>> provide a probability for the existence of such life. You can't provide
>> any such probability for the existence of a god.
>
> Sheesh. It's like talking to a fucking wall. Please provide one
> simple thing for me and I'll shut up. A simple equation explaining
> why people create art. That's it. Simple.
> If you can't do that than your grasp of science is as incomplete as
> your grasp of art.
Why should humans creating art be important ? Humans living on an
utterly insignificant (and rather average star) in an out of the way
corner of an average galaxy (one of possibly between 100 and 500
billion) have this weird conceit that they have some importance in the
universe.
> We don't even know how many fucking dimensions we live in.
You mean the extra fucking dimension Magilla and Liz encountered when
the earth moved for them ?
Of course those extra dimensions make god even more superfluous as they
could also explain the big bang as a collision between p-branes.
>
> Big fucking deal - you don't know something. Why does this seem to
> bother you so much? It's really weird that it does. Is that going
> concept somehow damaging to your brain? I seriously would like to
> know.
Not knowing doesn't bother me as much as you thinking it bothers me
seems to bother you. Although what really bothers you, along with most
humans believing in a god is attempting to replace reality with a
reality in which you don't die which is really what religions are about
(and on the cheerful subject of death LIVEDRUNK would no doubt approve
of Tallulah Bankhead's last words:
Codeine . . . bourbon
or Humphrey Bogart's:
I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis).
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 7:45 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 14, 12:15 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just reviewing this thread. I suggest to all of you that you read "The
> God Delusion" by Dawkins, if you haven't already.
I read it like the bible.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 12:18 pm
From: RicodJour
On Mar 14, 6:39 am, Simply Fred <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Sheesh. It's like talking to a fucking wall. Please provide one
> > simple thing for me and I'll shut up. A simple equation explaining
> > why people create art. That's it. Simple.
>
> > If you can't do that than your grasp of science is as incomplete as
> > your grasp of art.
>
> Why should humans creating art be important ? Humans living on an
> utterly insignificant (and rather average star) in an out of the way
> corner of an average galaxy (one of possibly between 100 and 500
> billion) have this weird conceit that they have some importance in the
> universe.
Art is isn't important? What is?
I like to make clear the difference between egotist and egoist. An
egotist believes when he does something it is of paramount importance
because he is the center of the universe. An egoist believes that
when he does something it is important because he is the one doing it.
I kind of view the universe like that. The odds of things revolving
around humanity are slight, albeit not non-existent, and it is
important to realize the importance of what we do because we are the
ones doing it. That has little to nothing to do with God.*
> > We don't even know how many fucking dimensions we live in.
>
> You mean the extra fucking dimension Magilla and Liz encountered when
> the earth moved for them ?
That transcended time and space.
> Of course those extra dimensions make god even more superfluous as they
> could also explain the big bang as a collision between p-branes.
Right. Equally right would be the belief that since we cannot sense
these other dimensions, and they are entirely theoretical constructs
at this point, we cannot even believe what our senses tell us.
Extrapolating across dimensions to confirm or deny anything, much less
the existence of other beings whatever their capabilities, is simply
absurd.
Science is often wrong, people are often wrong, shit happens, and no
one is as smart as they thing they are, including me. This is why I
do not feel qualified to put myself in a position to claim with any
certainty that there is or isn't a higher power. For all I know
microbes are God, and we're just one of the ways they get around.
> > Big fucking deal - you don't know something. Why does this seem to
> > bother you so much? It's really weird that it does. Is that going
> > concept somehow damaging to your brain? I seriously would like to
> > know.
>
> Not knowing doesn't bother me as much as you thinking it bothers me
> seems to bother you. Although what really bothers you, along with most
> humans believing in a god is attempting to replace reality with a
> reality in which you don't die which is really what religions are about
> (and on the cheerful subject of death LIVEDRUNK would no doubt approve
> of Tallulah Bankhead's last words:
> Codeine . . . bourbon
> or Humphrey Bogart's:
> I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis).
A reality in which I die? Sacrilege! I'm actually looking forward to
death, though I am not actively seeking it. It'll answer a lot of
questions...or none. I'm okay with either outcome. It's about the
journey, not the destination.
R
* BTW, I capitalize God because it's a surefire way to tell the
closed-minded masquerading as the open-minded, and not because of any
religious/spiritual belief.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: God to Jobst-Wear a Helmet
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/920f3f5ae6aa9253?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:15 am
From: Simply Fred
On 03/14/11 05:48, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> How many dimensions of troll can you count
> in those 6 words?
What about God tells Jobst to wear a helmet and two guns ?
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 6:57 am
From: Cicero Venatio
When I read that Jobst was in a wheel-chair in a nursing home, I did say
out loud "Jesus-God, remind me to always wear my helmet."
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 6:59 am
From: Cicero Venatio
Remember to check the rubber on those tires, a high speed blowout, with
no helmet could mean a wheelchair in a nursing home.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 7:38 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 3/14/2011 4:15 AM, Simply Fred wrote:
> On 03/14/11 05:48, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> How many dimensions of troll can you count
>> in those 6 words?
>
> What about God tells Jobst to wear a helmet and two guns ?
>
That would make a good Spike Bike storyline. I wonder what
Bob Fishell is up to these days.
Fred Flintstein
PS Taking out a tractor-trailer rig isn't easy.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 8:11 am
From: Brad Anders
On Mar 14, 6:57 am, Cicero Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When I read that Jobst was in a wheel-chair in a nursing home, I did say
> out loud "Jesus-God, remind me to always wear my helmet."
Jobst is at home, no longer at the VMC. He's using a wheelchair
because he can't put weight yet on the leg that suffered the broken
femur. It isn't clear at all that the cognitive issues that Jobst has
had have anything to do with hitting his head in the accident, it's
more likely that they are due to complications from the leg injury
(strokes) and common issues with elderly patients, surgical
procedures, and long hospital stays.
I know this is asking a lot from you and others, but when you're
looking for reasons to justify your choices (e.g. wearing a helmet),
could you try basing it on facts and not uniformed conjectures about
Jobst's accident?
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 8:55 am
From: Ryan Cousineau
1. Well, trolling's what we do. rbr is poorly constructed, socially speaking, to deal with actual real-life tragedies
2. Not to put too fine a point on it, but via hearsay (ie first-person accounts from friends, repeated on to me third hand, but not merely reading his newsgroup posts), Jobst had some cognitive issues before this crash. Cognitive issues are not unheard of in people in their late 60s, and I have some bad news for all of us health nuts: thanks to your excellent cardio systems, you're fairly likely to die from cancer, accident, or dementia.
"Not dying" is unlikely,
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 9:44 am
From: Anton Berlin
Not wearing a helmet hasn't affected Gary Busey either.
It's the case with most non-helmet wearers.
Diminished intellectual capacity is the hallmark trait before and
after the debilitating brain injury.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 10:18 am
From: Fred Flintstein
On 3/14/2011 10:55 AM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> 1. Well, trolling's what we do. rbr is poorly constructed, socially speaking, to deal with actual real-life tragedies
I regret not adding Liz Hatch. I was trying to minimize the number
of words. But really, no rbr troll is complete without Liz Hatch.
Fred Flintstein
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lance news.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/82ac2aada2a8cea9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:25 am
From: Simply Fred
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> This begs the question:
> What DO you read Lafferty for?
Intellectual S&M ?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 2:36 am
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd
On Mar 13, 8:42 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 9:46 PM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/13/2011 4:56 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
> >> On 3/12/2011 10:08 PM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >>> On 3/12/2011 4:33 PM, BLafferty wrote:
>
> >>>> Are you really so stupid? Her agency is paying for part of the
> >>>> investigation. So what?
>
> >>> Jesus Christ, Dumbass. Earlier you wrote:
> >>> >>>> Note to Georgia dumb dumb, the money is coming out of
> >>> >>>> the Justice Dept. budget. Try getting appointed to the
> >>> >>>> right committee. ROTFL!!
>
> >>> Quit rolling on the floor laughing and try to make some sense. Just
> >>> admit you were wrong and quit arguing about it. It's this crap that
> >>> makes everyone think you're a nut case.
>
> >> I missed that. Because I don't read Lafferty for
> >> comprehension.
>
> >> I'm kind of disquieted that some of you guys do.
> >> You should stop, you might hurt your brain.
>
> > This begs the question:
>
> > What DO you read Lafferty for?
>
> I read Lafferty for the same reason that people slow
> down to gawk at traffic accidents.
To annoy the people behind you??
Fredmaster Ben
I read it for the naughty bits.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally some nutritional advice for all RBR's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e831685b1751ed77?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 9:00 am
From: Ryan Cousineau
I noticed the fuzzy bun math when I first saw these ads, but getting shorted on bacon is the real tragedy.
Of course, I once set up a spreadsheet to calculate the cost/area of a pizzeria's pricing permutations on each size and the 1-fer and 2-fer prices. It was complicated by deciding how to calculate and price the crust zone.
And that is why I need to lose weight,
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 9:53 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 14, 11:00 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed the fuzzy bun math when I first saw these ads, but getting shorted on bacon is the real tragedy.
>
I am patenting a method for delivering bacon for all short - changed
fatties. Just like dieters carry little packages of nutra-sweet to
add to their tea.
e.g. Some fatty is in need of extra bacon - they text my dispatch
center and without even having to get off the couch or toilet I'll use
one of those little remote control hummingbirds (just like the
military is using to spot terrorists) to deliver an extra strip or
two directly to their cheese burger, cheesy tots or ice cream
sundae.
For RBR - there will be a larger model that can hover and precisely
drop up to a whole pound of cooked fatback if needed.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pantani:Belushi::Ricco:Farley
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/5144f25745775c36?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 9:46 am
From: Anton Berlin
On Mar 11, 6:49 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> How much longer before he's dead?
>
> -rj
Is Ricco getting fat without the CERA injections ?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Warming up for elite athletes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1ad5cb395c0f8cd6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 4:11 pm
From: Chris Renard
I'm convinced that warming up with precision becomes more crucial as
the athlete improves, and as the event is shorter in duration. I don't
mean merely that any old warm-up is required, I mean that the shorter
and more intense the performance must be, the more precision one needs
to have for the pre-competition warm-up protocols.
From what I see and hear, it seems like this message is not well-
regarded by anyone who will talk about it. There are so many stupid
people who think that by talking only about power, or metrics that can
be specified or measured very precisely that this is "more scientific"
if one ignored other crucial factors that can't be measured as
precisely. Knowing power is enough, especially if you have the same
brand of power meter as your top heroes.
I just can't find any evidence that in-depth scientific investigation
has been published, but I might be looking in the wrong places.
Who what and where can I look for such enlightenment? Use as troll-
bait if you wish, as long as someone comes up with any clues
whatsoever, I am thrilled to be used as bait for any kind of abuse:>)
But seriously, it really seems that with delusional idiots like Greg
Lemond are so emotionally attached to thinking that he really was the
best cyclist for all time, have invested in the idea that performance
above a given limit is humanly impossible. The consequences of this
belief include the implication that optimal training methods are
already known, and therefore a given athlete must merely dial-in your
performance according to unadulterated power metrics protocols, and
some day you can be sure that you are moving towards that peak DNA
limited performance without any additional need for scientific
investigation.
This is naturally absurd, yet you'd never know it according to what is
published (in my experiences)...but I have been immersed on
nonathletic endeavors for the past several years, but hearing excuses
from the mouth of Lance Armstrong for his last two Tour performances
makes me think that either he is a liar (hiding all of his insight in
to the subject) or even he has just accepted that Chris Carmichael
knows and publishes all that there is to know about science-guided
athletic conditioning protocols.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: spoiler alert: actually about racing!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9e8b9b93a1070dab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 14 2011 4:36 pm
From: Fred
Pretty cool watching Evans in today's T-A finale. Talk about proving
that the race leader deserves to be the race leader...
Fred
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
