Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Chainguarders on BFers

thought you might be interested in what a chainguard member thinks of bike forum folks; inaccuracies and generalizations abound! :eek: He also advises Chainguarders they are "wise" not to visit BF.


"The gist of the current firefight is the assertion that JF, by
> associating with the evil reactionaries of the American Dream
> Coalition, has revealed his pro-sprawl, pro-motoring bias, has
> unforgivably betrayed cyclists, and is forevermore disqualified as a
> "bicycle advocate" (as they would typically say). Any other VC
> proponents daring to pipe up are denounced as John's "acolytes" and
> "minions" and cast into the outer darkness.
>
> The underlying reality is the usual. They don't want to share the
> roads with motorized traffic (without, at least, magical stripes to
> protect them), they don't want to be told that they should learn
> cycling skills, and they think it's perfectly sensible to construct
> segregated facilities to take them wherever they desire to travel.
>
> Their attitudes have been reinforced, now, by decades of cultural
> reinforcement, so they are confident in their belief that the
> "Foresterites" are a bunch of noisy but irrelevant dinosaurs whose
> time is long past and who will soon be buried under new MUPs."
>
>
>
> - (name of chainguard poster)

sounds pretty accurate to me

:eek: ;)

:roflmao:

:beer:

So this person sums our entire BF community up as a whole by the ideas of the few that posted in that one thread.
heh, kinda sounds like the things we do ourselves, but that don't make it right

well, yeah.

since all of us think the same way and stuff. :rolleyes:

Chainguard is famous for it's satirical, anti-facility rhetoric. Tongue in cheek humor, not much appreciated by it's opponents. MAD magazine for VC'ers.

Yet Chainguard has it's more serious sides, such as in this link provided on the front page of it's website:

http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/

Excerpt from link:


WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF OVERVIEW
World Bicycle Relief’s vision is that simple sustainable mobility is an essential element in disaster relief and poverty relief. In developed and developing countries, bicycles fulfill the basic mobility needs of individuals and have a direct impact in support of healthcare, education, and economic development. Bicycles empower individuals, their families, and their communities. Our mission is to provide access to independence and livelihood through the power of bicycles.
Read More >

WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF CURRENT PROJECT: ZAMBIA
World Bicycle Relief’s newest project involves providing 26,000 bicycles to trained HIV/AIDS healthcare workers and educators in Zambia. The objective is to bring healthcare to patients, patients to clinics, and preventative care education to communities. The program will reach 520,000 adults, orphans, and vulnerable children.
Read More >

DONATION UPDATE
Updated: February 28, 2007
Bikes Delivered 50 26,000
Funds Raised $714,700 $2,969,200

So, even if you find the humor distasteful, you can log on to the website and donate for World Bicycle Relief. I'm sure AIDS victims in Zambia won't mind. :)

:eek: Chainguard is humorous and satirical? I must not be looking in the right places!

I'd rephrase it thusly:

Chainguard is famous for attempting satirical, tongue in cheek humor, without success.

MAD magazine was produced by actual humorists who put down people like the elitist snobs running Chainguard, and was a whole lot better.

:eek: Chainguard is humorous and satirical? I must not be looking in the right places!
Be my guest:

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

Warning: don't take it too seriously. :)

Excerpt:

"Just beyond a set of registration tables manned by volunteer pedestrian-bicycle advocates, Kingsley keeps an attentive eye as another biker is directed into the "chamber", a plexiglass enclosure scarcely larger than a phone booth. Even wearing the protective goggles, there is no mistaking the look of apprehension on the biker's face. "Don't be nervous," Kingsley offers, "It will be a bit warm, but actually tickles a little."

I loved MAD as a teenager. perfect for a smart-ass or wannabe smart-ass

I loved MAD as a teenager. perfect for a smart-ass or wannabe smart-ass
Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions:

Dentist: "Did that hurt?"

Patient: "Oh, no, Dr. Drillbit. It didn't hurt at all. I was just concerned about the upholstery in you chair when the drill went through the back of my neck."

:)

Ah, yes, our bestest favoritest BF poster, reporting to chainguard. He and I have had some misunderstandings in the past; hopefully we can get past them. FWIW, I would like to appologize for my behavior towards him. I was a bit rude.

At least some of those guys on chainguard see how Mr. Forester's presentation style and advocacy strategy kind of alienate him from other cyclists and bicyclist advocates, as shown on these forums. I wish it weren't so, as Effective Cycling's chapter 4 is probably the best manual for vehicular traffic cycling produced. If they would just yield a little and compromise a bit on the facilities part, then we wouldn't have to segregate the world into "VC'ists" and "anti-car advocates". If I were king, as the saying goes, I would set the whole facilities thing aside and concentrate on getting laws implemented in our favor and increasing the popularity of cycling and the training those new cyclists are exposed to through any means possible.

The people in Mr. Forester's camp seem to be resigned to cycling being an extremely minor part of the transportational system. I don't believe this is true. In fact, to advocate for bicyclist's rights even, requires that one assumes that cycling will eventually reattain some sort of prominence in the transportational system.

I am heartened though, by my experiences in the suburbs of Portland. Just yesterday, I was bicycling on my commute and I caught up with two other cyclists, and a car actually had to exert some effort to change lanes into the bike lane to make a right turn! For a moment, the bike lane was a normal lane which the motorist had to yield to several cyclists who had the right of way in that lane to make the lane change.

Let's not be too hasty in judging these folks. They share some of the same goals as many of us:

"My wife thinks cycling is a great way to spend time as a family while burning a few calories. For her, the family ride is quality time. Then again, she does not have the trailer with 50 or so stuffed animals and the 2-year-old singing "Old McDonald" attached to her bike."
- John Kibodeaux


"Since the bicycle makes little demand on material or energy resources, contributes little to pollution, makes a positive contribution to health and causes little death or injury, it can be regarded as the most benevolent of machines."
- S. S. Wilson

"Once folks are grown up, it seems, we are supposed to propel ourselves by burning petroleum."
- Murray Carpenter

Be my guest:

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

Warning: don't take it too seriously. :)

Excerpt:

"Just beyond a set of registration tables manned by volunteer pedestrian-bicycle advocates, Kingsley keeps an attentive eye as another biker is directed into the "chamber", a plexiglass enclosure scarcely larger than a phone booth. Even wearing the protective goggles, there is no mistaking the look of apprehension on the biker's face. "Don't be nervous," Kingsley offers, "It will be a bit warm, but actually tickles a little."
this isn't funny, its just lame

:love: I know, Littlebigman. and I want to build a bridge. a big ol' love bridge! who's with me?
:love:

Love Can Build a Bridge (The Judds)

Id gladly walk across the desert
With no shoes upon my feet
To share with you the last bite
Of bread I had to eat
I would swim out to save you
In your sea of broken dreams
When all your hopes are sinkin
Let me show you what love means
:love:
(chorus)

Love can build a bridge
Between your heart and mine
Love can build a bridge
Dont you think its time?
Dont you think its time?

I would whisper love so loudly
Every heart could understand
That love and only love
Can join the tribes of man
I would give my hearts desire
So that you might see
The first step is to realize
That it all begins with you and me

(repeat chorus)

When we stand together
Its our finest hour
We can do anything, anything
Keep believin in the power

(repeat chorus)

Love and only love
Love and only love

this isn't funny, its just lame
And I guess the program to help AIDS workers in Zambia get bicycles is lame?

Wow. All you can focus on is what divides you.

(EDIT: I know, Littlebigman. and I want to build a bridge. a big ol' love bridge! who's with me? )

:)

And I guess the program to help AIDS workers in Zambia get bicycles is lame?
i dunno is it serious or more 'mad magazine' style humor?

In fact, to advocate for bicyclist's rights even, requires that one assumes that cycling will eventually reattain some sort of prominence in the transportational system.

Not really. To advocate for cyclists' rights simply means you think cyclists should have rights to the road, after all, they are public rights of way and thus we should all have equal rights to use the roads (except for motorists who only have a priviledge to use the road). The fact that the guests of the road system are currently so prominent should in no way reflect on how cyclists are treated as users of the roads. I certainly don't think of myself as a second hand road user while I'm cycling just because I'm in the minority.

Not really. To advocate for cyclists' rights simply means you think cyclists should have rights to the road, after all, they are public rights of way and thus we should all have equal rights to use the roads (except for motorists who only have a priviledge to use the road). The fact that the guests of the road system are currently so prominent should in no way reflect on how cyclists are treated as users of the roads. I certainly don't think of myself as a second hand road user while I'm cycling just because I'm in the minority.

Yes, but how is this in any way a priority to anyone if there are no cyclists? If the road were uniformly made up of motorized traffic, then the mere possibility of adding a bicyclist is just a bother, especially if you have to insert words about nonexistent bicyclists into the driver's manual and provide wide outside lanes or bike lanes for their benefit.

You have to have bicyclists in order to advocate for bicyclists' rights. The whole conflict between bicyclists and cars goes away when there are bicyclists around in numbers.

And, newsflash, cars are not guests on the road. They are, currently, the primary users of this particular public right of way - their needs come first until another vehicle type becomes prominant enough to demand some of the pie. The fact that driving is a licensed activity just means that public safety demands that all drivers be familiar with the rules of the road. The ability to obtain a license is a right which cannot be abridged lightly.

It's a chicken and egg problem, for sure; but not really a paradox. You just need to solve the equations simultaineously and advocate for both increased rights on the road and more bicyclists out on the street at the same time.

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html


this isn't funny, its just lame
When I first read it, some time ago, I was ROTFL :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Then I stopped for a minute and thought about Bike Forums
which caused me to fall down ROTFL again :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
thinking how much you, rando, Bek, Diane and a few others would hate it.

And I guess the program to help AIDS workers in Zambia get bicycles is lame?



i dunno is it serious or more 'mad magazine' style humor?
Click on the link to donate, and see if it works.

;)

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html


When I first read it, some time ago, I was ROTFL :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Then I stopped for a minute and thought about Bike Forums
which caused me to fall down ROTFL again :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
thinking how much you, rando, Bek, Diane and a few others would hate it.

I didn't hate it!

everyone deserves a good satirization once in a while! keeps you humble.

of course, the Love Bridge I want to build would include preferential lanes for cyclists. just sayin'.:D

of course, the Love Bridge I want to build would include preferential lanes for cyclists. just sayin'.:D
...swept regularly...no crumbs in the bed!

:eek:

thought you might be interested in what a chainguard member thinks of bike forum folks; inaccuracies and generalizations abound! :eek: He also advises Chainguarders they are "wise" not to visit BF.


"The gist of the current firefight is the assertion that JF, by
> associating with the evil reactionaries of the American Dream
> Coalition, has revealed his pro-sprawl, pro-motoring bias, has
> unforgivably betrayed cyclists, and is forevermore disqualified as a
> "bicycle advocate" (as they would typically say). Any other VC
> proponents daring to pipe up are denounced as John's "acolytes" and
> "minions" and cast into the outer darkness.
>
> The underlying reality is the usual. They don't want to share the
> roads with motorized traffic (without, at least, magical stripes to
> protect them), they don't want to be told that they should learn
> cycling skills, and they think it's perfectly sensible to construct
> segregated facilities to take them wherever they desire to travel.
>
> Their attitudes have been reinforced, now, by decades of cultural
> reinforcement, so they are confident in their belief that the
> "Foresterites" are a bunch of noisy but irrelevant dinosaurs whose
> time is long past and who will soon be buried under new MUPs."
>
>
>
> - (name of chainguard poster)

Sounds like we're finally getting through.


http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

I guess I'm just dumb. I don't get it.

I guess I'm just dumb. I don't get it.
Why can't we be different without acting like we don't have anything in common?

Are we that afraid of each other?

Let's not be too hasty in judging these folks.Why not?

Spoilsport. :D

The VC-ists have an entire ideology built on categorizing and demeaning those with the audacity not to accept the dogma of The Great One. Yea, we're all anti-motorists who are afraid to ride in traffic. See how easy it is to dismiss the opinions of others. John Forester has made it his life's work.

The header for the chainguard list says, "Real Cyclists, Real Advocacy." I'd be insulted to be on a list for real cyclists-- like I think my shyt don't stink. I'd rather be a phobic, anti-motorist incompetent unreal cyclist bikeforum poster (call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner).



They share some of the same goals as many of us:That's true but sometimes I think it's the VC-ists that have the most difficult time with that concept. Maybe you should tell them that.

:roflmao:

Be my guest:

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

Warning: don't take it too seriously. :)

Excerpt:

"Just beyond a set of registration tables manned by volunteer pedestrian-bicycle advocates, Kingsley keeps an attentive eye as another biker is directed into the "chamber", a plexiglass enclosure scarcely larger than a phone booth. Even wearing the protective goggles, there is no mistaking the look of apprehension on the biker's face. "Don't be nervous," Kingsley offers, "It will be a bit warm, but actually tickles a little."

That is seriously funny. I'd love to see him give a presentation on that in front of a planning commision, or some such.

Why can't we be different without acting like we don't have anything in common?

Are we that afraid of each other?

I'm serious. I started reading it and I didn't understand why it would be either funny or offensive. Maybe I was too distracted. It just didn't make any sense.

I'm serious. I started reading it and I didn't understand why it would be either funny or offensive. Maybe I was too distracted. It just didn't make any sense.
It is satire on Portland’s Blue painted bike lanes.

Chainguard is famous for it's satirical, anti-facility rhetoric. Tongue in cheek humor, not much appreciated by it's opponents.Yea, 'cuz we're all too stupid-- low IQ, reading comprehension problems and limited education, don't ya know?

Chainguard (probicycle.com) is satire?

"Same Roads - Same Rights - Same Rules" (which they have trademarked) is satire?

"On-Road Vehicular Cycling is the Safest Form of Bicycling. By Far." is satire?

Next you'll be telling us Effective Cycling is satire (or maybe, just the wacky stuff is satire).

So, was John Forester's original post in the thread in question (the post that begins, "There is a great difference between cyclist advocacy and bicycle advocacy") satire, too?

Is John Forester's "us vs. them" attitude (which seems to dominate everything he does or says) satire?

What other John Forester theories (besides the two kinds of advocates theory) are satire?
Two kind of cyclists theory (club or British cyclists vs. the riff-raff, a.k.a. incompetent cyclists)?
Two kinds of bicycles theory (the ones Brits built vs. all the others)?
Americans are phobic - Brits and club cyclists aren't theory?
Self-test theory?
Wacky theories are science theory?
Bikeforum posters are all alike and all stupid theory?


So, John Forester is not a two-bit pseudo-scientist who thinks he knows everything? He's actually one of the world's great satirists? VC-ist "facilities are inherently bad" theory is not a load of horse manure; it's satire?

That's good to know.

----

I've always enjoyed the chainguard (probicycle.com) website. It's a classic. VC lunacy raised to an artform. It IS funny, but not nearly as funny a Forester's website.

So, LBM, do ya think my post is entirely serious?

Or just half serious?

Is your "chainguard is satire" claim satire?

Inquiring minds want to know.

So, LBM, do ya think my post is entirely serious?

Or just half serious?

Is your "chainguard is satire" claim satire?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Well, I sense some degree of animosity in your post, just as I do reading Chainguard.

Chainguard is famous for it's satirical, anti-facility rhetoric. Tongue in cheek humor, not much appreciated by it's opponents. MAD magazine for VC'ers.

Yet Chainguard has it's more serious sides, such as in this link provided on the front page of it's website:

http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/

The OP was clearly referring to the posters and postings found on the the Yahoo Groups ChainGuard discussion list, http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134 NOT the WebSite run by Chuck Taylor. Good try at diverting attention from the OP. And the "gist" of the OP.

Note To Brian R. The BF poster referenced in the OP is a relatively new member of the BF list, not one of our 'ole time buddies. But the new member certainly has made a name for himself n BF A & S with his "expert" ranting ever since hitting the ground running with hostility to the other BF members who don't fit the ChainGuard Profile.

I think this CG guy gets it wrong that the people he mocks on BF don't want to share the road wtih motorized traffic. I don't think any of us has ever said that.

yeah, it's just the kind of broad generalization that you can use to rally the troops but is not accurate.

and for the record, yes, I am referring to the Yahoo sports "Chainguard" list, I don't know who/what Chuck Taylor or that other site is. see the link on ILTB's post.

From reading through that thread, my impression is that there are several opinions floating around Chainguard. The broad generalization of Chainguard members is probably just as wrong as the broad generalization of Bike Forum members.

The OP was clearly referring to the posters and postings found on the the Yahoo Groups ChainGuard discussion list, http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134 NOT the WebSite run by Chuck Taylor. Good try at diverting attention from the OP. And the "gist" of the OP.
My friend, all you had to do was correct me. My bad, but not intentional.

Why would I intentionally try to divert the thread by lying? Do you really think I'm that way?

Sorry, I made a mistake. But take a chill pill and relax with the trigger finger, OK?

No wonder I couldn't find what the OP was referencing... ;)

As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say, "nevermind."

From reading through that thread, my impression is that there are several opinions floating around Chainguard. The broad generalization of Chainguard members is probably just as wrong as the broad generalization of Bike Forum members.

Touche, my friend.
I have noticed the same in just my cursory surfing over the chainguard site. they are hardly in lock-step with each other... ofr rather, they seem to have a few who criticize certain aspects of the forester platform.

From reading through that thread, my impression is that there are several opinions floating around Chainguard.
See if you can find any with a differing opinion on the basis of Forester's conclusions - Forester's "use"/misuse of statistics, data, "scientific" methods, theories on cyclist phobias, etc., to come up with the Forester bottom line conclusion - the public's need for Forester Brand Cycling advocacy and associated training program. And in the the absence of adapting that advocacy and training, a program of obstructionism for all cycling programs not invented by Forester and Associates.

Special Note: Let me know if you find any opinions that find ANY fault with Forester's quantitative claims of Vehicular Cyclists' (and Effective Cycling™ students) spectacular safety record (in comparison with all others.)

My friend, all you had to do was correct me. My bad, but not intentional.

Why would I intentionally try to divert the thread by lying? Do you really think I'm that way?

Sorry, I made a mistake. But take a chill pill and relax with the trigger finger, OK?

No wonder I couldn't find what the OP was referencing... ;)

As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say, "nevermind."
You weren't intentional? OK, good. You are not that way? Good.

My "trigger finger" was quite restrained in this case, I'm glad you clarified your intent.

But you should note some of the posts and "debate methods" by some defenders of the Faith on this list, and it might provide a reason why suspicion is aroused when an apparent McGuffin is offered to move the thread to the standard VC plot line.

You weren't intentional? OK, good. You are not that way? Good.

My "trigger finger" was quite restrained in this case, I'm glad you clarified your intent.


I approached you honestly because I thought you might respect me, because I respected you, in spite of the fact you called me a liar.

Maybe I haven't bowed low enough?

I approached you honestly because I thought you might respect me, because I respected you, in spite of the fact you called me a liar.

Maybe I haven't bowed low enough?
Oh you've bowed low 'enuff. But your eyes need some cleaning. Called you "a liar"? Not hardly. If I thought you were and were to post about it, you wouldn't have to find my intent by reading tea leaves.

Maybe you've been reading too much BF and its clouding your mind and making you super sensitive to imagined "insults'. Take a break and go for a bike ride and Enjoy!

See if you can find any with a differing opinion on the basis of Forester's conclusions - Forester's "use"/misuse of statistics, data, "scientific" methods, theories on cyclist phobias, etc., to come up with the Forester bottom line conclusion - the public's need for Forester Brand Cycling advocacy and associated training program. And in the the absence of adapting that advocacy and training, a program of obstructionism for all cycling programs not invented by Forester and Associates.

Special Note: Let me know if you find any opinions that find ANY fault with Forester's quantitative claims of Vehicular Cyclists' (and Effective Cycling™ students) spectacular safety record (in comparison with all others.)

Yes, I would say that you are quite right on the point. That is, from a quick glance at several threads, no post challenged the empirical reality or even the robustness of various claims. Note that my sample was neither random or large enough to come to any strong conclusion.

Oh you've bowed low 'enuff. But your eyes need some cleaning. Called you "a liar"? Not hardly.
You said I intentionally misdirected the thread by posting the wrong link. Gaslighting, now?


If I thought you were and were to post about it, you wouldn't have to find my intent by reading tea leaves.
If I misread your intent, it's no wonder you got some of your own back.


Maybe you've been reading too much BF and its clouding your mind and making you super sensitive to imagined "insults'. Take a break and go for a bike ride and Enjoy!
I am only sensitive to insults from people I respect. After that, lesson learned.

Yes, I would say that you are quite right on the point. That is, from a quick glance at several threads, no post challenged the empirical reality or even the robustness of various claims. Note that my sample was neither random or large enough to come to any strong conclusion.
Take your time. If you go back far enough,(three or four years) before dissenting opinion was shut off by the Forester worshiping moderator, you may find some stimulating discussion; but not since.

You said I intentionally misdirected the thread by posting the wrong link.
"Intentionally" is your qualifier, not mine. "Liar" is your description of someone who steers a debate in another direction, not mine. Enuff with the whining; bottom line:
A BF member posted on Chainguard his version of the "gist" of the single view held by all Bike Forum members. A nice target for his CG pals to stone, unmolested by rebuttal.

A number of respondents tended to take the view that mixing motor advocacy and cycling advocacy, and bicycle advocacy may be "strange bedfellows."


One point John seems to miss, or maybe gloss over, is that some anti-motorists
are not anti-roadway or cyclist-inferiority. They just happen to be
anti-motorists.


Women's suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, and the Vietnam War are
all examples of success stories, founded by passionate advocacy. If
something needs to be fixed, I say, "fix it", and that is definitely
the case with the Auto-Centered US, and all the "Overconsumption
Lifestyle" baggage that accompanies this disease.

Don't get all hung up in the "different groups..." What is more important is that we as cyclists need to come together to protect our rights... no matter how much extreme some advocates may appear. Any division within ourselves at this point only weakens our overall political voice. MADD has made strides toward reducing drunk driving. And those bound to wheelchairs have made strides in getting curb cuts throughout the nation. We as a group, need to maintain a common focus and quit splintering our efforts.

United we stand, divided we fall.

By the way, below is a blip on Chainguard that you receive after joining the group. More or less, the group is defined as one that promotes VC and advocacy from a VC framework.

......................................

==================================
THE CHAINGUARD LIST IS NOT INTENDED AS A CHAT ROOM OR BULLETIN BOARD FOR BICYCLING CHIT-CHAT OR DISCUSSION OF BICYCLING EXPERIENCES.

The ONLY correct topic for posts to the Chainguard list is:

VEHICULAR CYCLING ADVOCACY ISSUES

That's ADVOCACY, with an emphasis on effective methods and ideas.
===================================

Chainguard is a forum for serious productive discussion and brainstorming by vehicular cycling advocates of methods to best promote and protect vehicular cycling.

The Chainguard list is for those who believe that bicyclists have the right,
should expect, and be prepared to demand, safe accommodation as vehicle
operators on EVERY road - the rights and concepts known as Vehicular Cycling.
The list is for those who have moved beyond debating vehicular-cycling rights as compared to restricted lanes and separate pedestrian-bicycle facilities. If you are using this list to debate the merits of Vehicular Cycling vs. "paint and path" then you are on the wrong list and your posts will be deleted.


If you are an active vehicular cyclist or advocate, or someone wishing to learn more about vehicular cycling and why we believe what we do, then stick around.

A final thought. Like most any public gathering, this list has a wide range of personalities and approaches to communication. A select few have very little to contribute, but do so with great generosity. Their posts are often line-by-line, even word-by-word, analyses of previous posts, seeking anything to challenge and often reinterpreting the original author's meaning to accommodate their own always self-righteous frequently fantasy-world viewpoints. On most any topic they will have thoughts to share and they must have the last word, so please- for all our sakes give it to them immediately. They will never leave a response unanswered and they communicate in a never-ending stream of disjointed chat-room fragments. Do us all a favor and make an effort to ignore their posts just as many of us have learned to do. They are the yapping dogs of our online neighborhood.

==================

"Intentionally" is your qualifier, not mine. Enuff with the whining; bottom line:
A BF member posted on Chainguard his version of the "gist" of the single view held by all Bike Forum members. A nice target for his CG pals to stone, unmolested by rebuttal.
"Enuff with the whining" is good enough for you, I guess. Apology accepted, ILTB.

(Anyone who intentionally posts the wrong link is deceiving people. That's lying.)

Moreover, there is a connection between Chainguard YAHOO forum and an outside website ... http://probicycle.com/

I like the website address.

LittleBigMan ... From my perspective, ILTB did not call you a liar. But his post was neither particularly diplomatic nor kind.

Anyway, ILTB and LBM, can we move on in the public forum?

Take your time. If you go back far enough,(three or four years) before dissenting opinion was shut off by the Forester worshiping moderator, you may find some stimulating discussion; but not since.

Nahhhh, I believe you considering the tone of the present Chainguard threads.