BMX - The new bike thread

Post your questions about getting a new bike here!

(Someone sticky this!)

yawn.

yawn.
Haha, everyone has been talking about one of these type threads so i made one, and all you can do is Yawn!

Zzz

cmon expat, make this a sticky, it needs to be one

What makes you think noobs will read it anyways.

What makes you think noobs will read it anyways.
If they dont, well severly bash and trash talk them! :D

And that would be something new?

And that would be something new?
Well this way, they would have a chance to put their questions in the right thread, and they dont have to search becuase itll be a sticky!

And that would be something new?
No, but atleast we would have a legitimate reason to do so.

Well this way, they would have a chance to put their questions in the right thread, and they dont have to search becuase itll be a sticky!

Oh, so there would be no need to search for insults?

Oh, so there would be no need to search for insults?
We wouldnt have to insult them, all their questions that are all the same would be in the thread, so we could just quote ourselves with the answer from a few posts back from the last person that posted the similar question...

Did that make sense?

I understood that.

Go on Expat!!

And how much time would I spend editing out all the crap that gets posted, when you guys go off on a tangent?

Probably no more than usual

Probably no more than usual
it made me chuckle

And how much time would I spend editing out all the crap that gets posted, when you guys go off on a tangent?
Just sticky it, and delete all the posts except the first....

I am a beginner and i can bunnyhop and launch off a kicker.I am trying to do a bunny hop off the kicker but i can not get the front end back down,But the problem is i have a freakin' walmart pacific(dirt jumping)bike.The gosh darn handlebars are stripped and keep goin' down when i land. I need advice on a bike i am thinking about getting either a DK six pack, GT 06' king,or a Diamondback orion please help:(

Dk 6 pack.

you already made a thread on this.

you already made a thread on this.
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning... and then forgot to take his pills.

Unless anyone on here has a given name of Richard, we really shouldn't be seeing that.

i think i have mono or somthing from kissing to many boys, i've felt extremly tired and lazy lately.

Ps. im straight.

i think i have mono or somthing from kissing to many boys, i've felt extremly tired and lazy lately.

Ps. im straight.

Oh great, lazy and gay.

Probably no more than usual

I chuckled.

Oh great, lazy and gay.
So the great mod of bikeforums is showing signs of disliking gay people... I thought you were supposed to be the peacemaker here Expat. What if someone here is gay and you just offended him?

Yeah, how could you!:(

So the great mod of bikeforums is showing signs of disliking gay people... I thought you were supposed to be the peacemaker here Expat. What if someone here is gay and you just offended him?

I don't recall saying I dislike gay people. I only expressed sarcastic disdain for the fact that he said he was gay and lazy.

As in that being gay was a bad thing. It's like saying that you are mean and stupid... mean and stupid being the traits disliked by the other person.

As in that being gay was a bad thing. It's like saying that you are mean and stupid... mean and stupid being the traits disliked by the other person.

Not neccesarily a 'negative' trait, but perhaps one being contrasted with an existing norm in order to highlight stereotypes about gays and lazy people?

It's an unwritten, but oft-spoken, construct that homosexuals are considered 'trendsetters' or 'bellwethers' in many different fields, fashion being the obvious example to point to.

It's easy to see how a lazy person would have trouble being *any* sort of trendsetter: being a trendsetter implies research and development: predictions and prescriptions for the future of an industry X or aesthetic Y.

Lazy people, by definition, don't work hard; homosexuals, by stereotype, are on the cutting edge of X and Y. I find it at least somewhat humorous to imply someone has managed to be 'complex' enough to balance both homosexuality and sloth (presuming it's not meant to be genuinely pejorative.)

But call me old fashioned. =0)

Ya, I didnt read your post. I glanced over the first sentence and realized it had some words with more then two syllables, and they looked complicated.

We're dumb, we dont read big stuff like that, for **** sakes, Mude was laughing about somebody going to Seymour Johnson airbase.

Was the base named after Major Johnson?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/wethepeople101/other%20stuff/cats3.jpg
I dont know

haha...seymor johnson

Was the base named after Major Johnson?
nah, i think the dudes birth name was
Mike Oxbig he may have had a brother named York Oxbig but im not sure.

Not neccesarily a 'negative' trait, but perhaps one being contrasted with an existing norm in order to highlight stereotypes about gays and lazy people?

It's an unwritten, but oft-spoken, construct that homosexuals are considered 'trendsetters' or 'bellwethers' in many different fields, fashion being the obvious example to point to.

It's easy to see how a lazy person would have trouble being *any* sort of trendsetter: being a trendsetter implies research and development: predictions and prescriptions for the future of an industry X or aesthetic Y.

Lazy people, by definition, don't work hard; homosexuals, by stereotype, are on the cutting edge of X and Y. I find it at least somewhat humorous to imply someone has managed to be 'complex' enough to balance both homosexuality and sloth (presuming it's not meant to be genuinely pejorative.)

But call me old fashioned. =0)
Most of us are teenagers. Teenagers don't like to read, especially things with words above the level of "good, bad, happy, sad". Also, just a question, why would you waste all that time to come up with a great big explanation for something like this? The context (this is a big word for many people on here) of his sentence would make people assume he does not like gays.

Most of us are teenagers. Teenagers don't like to read, especially things with words above the level of "good, bad, happy, sad". Also, just a question, why would you waste all that time to come up with a great big explanation for something like this? The context (this is a big word for many people on here) of his sentence would make people assume he does not like gays.

How do you know I'm something other than a teenager?

Further, how can you know that I didn't just one-off that 'great big explanation' while I was gargling mouthwash before I went to bed?

=0)


I'm not a teenager, FTR, but when I was I loved to read. And if you [teenagers] don't like to read things above 'good, bad, happy, sad,' then that's your own fault. It sure as shootin' doesn't mean I'm going to stop writing them.

(Y'all should read more anyway. It'll do you well, promise.)

You still had to write the "big explanation" which takes a bit of time. I used to read a lot, and that's probably why I used to be so smart- not saying that I'm not smart now. I used to be like the prodigy child, but now I'm just... smart. I hate reading now, and I normally fall asleep. Even you probably fell/would fall asleep if you read Tale of Two Cities.

i think i read the first few words of all the posts in this thread...


good enough

You still had to write the "big explanation" which takes a bit of time. I used to read a lot, and that's probably why I used to be so smart- not saying that I'm not smart now. I used to be like the prodigy child, but now I'm just... smart. I hate reading now, and I normally fall asleep. Even you probably fell/would fall asleep if you read Tale of Two Cities.

You might say that the difference between you and I is that you were a metaphor for the prodigy, while I was truly prodigious (just joking!)

I read 'Tale' in one go in 9th grade (age 15), but to be fair, Dickens is so obtuse in the first place that any analysis of his works (esp. 'Tale') has to be broken up into its' component parts. After all, anyone can just plow through a book; reading is about comprehension, imho.
Now 'Pride and Prejudice,' there's a snoozer!
If you're really into bikes and want some literature, though, try 'The Third Policeman' by a Joyce contemp., Flann O'Brien. He's huge into bikes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/RoscotheIroc/fart.jpg

You might say that the difference between you and I is that you were a metaphor for the prodigy, while I was truly prodigious (just joking!)

I read 'Tale' in one go in 9th grade (age 15), but to be fair, Dickens is so obtuse in the first place that any analysis of his works (esp. 'Tale') has to be broken up into its' component parts. After all, anyone can just plow through a book; reading is about comprehension, imho.
Now 'Pride and Prejudice,' there's a snoozer!
If you're really into bikes and want some literature, though, try 'The Third Policeman' by a Joyce contemp., Flann O'Brien. He's huge into bikes.
Dickens sucks. Every book I've read of his has been horrible. Pretty much every book I've read of hers has been horrible... I don't enjoy reading books.

Dickens sucks. Every book I've read of his has been horrible. Pretty much every book I've read of hers has been horrible... I don't enjoy reading books.

Uh, I think they were taling about Charles, not Emily. But I haven't been paying close attention.

Uh, I think they were taling about Charles, not Emily. But I haven't been paying close attention.
I meant 'his' which would be Charles. I just made a typo. I didn't even know there was an Emily.

The 'Emily' is 'Dickinson,' probably.
I'd take Charles over her anyday.

Another gay one?

haha

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/RoscotheIroc/fart.jpg
For lack of anything else to say, me too.