Let's see who can state the essence of the pro-Bike Lane and anti-BL positions most succinctly.
As the OP, I'll be the judge, so I won't enter the contest (you've had enough of my opinions anyway). But if you feel someone's entry is particularly good, post in support of it, and the judge will take your words of support under consideration. Because of my bias, I will probably defer to someone like Gene or the Ratliffs to recognize the best pro-BL entry.
There are three potential winners:
The entry which explains why vehicular cycling advocates are opposed to most if not all bike lanes on urban and suburban surface streets accurately and more succinctly than any other entry.
The entry which explains why bike lane advocates support at least well-designed if not as many as possible bike lanes on urban and suburban surface streets accurately and more succinctly than any other entry.
The entry which explains both positions accurately and more succinctly than any other entry.
Grand Prize: Recognition and adulation from forum members!
Entry deadline: midnight, one week from today: Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Good luck!
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I know that you recused yourself, but I'd like to nominate your post.
I think this gem best explains the HH reasoning behind opposing bike lanes:
I'll be the judge
sggoodri
Pro Bike Lane: Bike lane stripes and stencils make it clear to everyone that there is room for motorists to pass bicyclists on the left without delay.
Anti Bike Lane: For safety and efficiency, cyclists must often operate farther from the roadway edge, and often where motorists cannot pass on the left, with or without delay. This contra-indicates bike-specific positioning markings on most ordinary roads since these traffic control devices would need to be ignored so frequently as to be useless or harmful.
zeytoun
Pro Bike Lane: Bike lanes make it clear to everyone that there is room for motorists to pass bicyclists on the left without delay.
Anti Bike Lane: For safety and efficiency, cyclists must often operate farther from the roadway edge, and often where motorists cannot pass on the left, with or without delay, which contra-indicates bike-specific pavement markings on most ordinary roads.
Mine's shorter, but contains all of the substance of yours:
ProBikeLane:Bikelanesmakeitcleartoeveryonethatthereisroomformotoriststopassbicyclistsontheleftwithou tdelay.AntiBikeLane:Forsafetyandefficiency,cyclistsmustoftenoperatefartherfromtheroadwayedge,andofte nwheremotoristscannotpassontheleft,withorwithoutdelay,whichcontraindicatesbikespecificpavementmarkin gsonmostordinaryroads
deputyjones
Can we slaughter the lamb in your honor anywhere or should we wait we wait for the shrine to the almighty intellect of BF to be finished?
natelutkjohn
Being Judged by the guy who makes it up as he goes? No f'ing thankyou! But if I was judging, Pete (*edit* it appears Pete erased his post, so no, I'm not seeing things, it's just not there anymore, :) ) and Zeytoun's first post seem to have hit it right on.
But what the heck (since I have no worries about winning and therefore being judged by old HH there)-
Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses
sbhikes
HH you are wasting valuable energy on the whole anti-bike lane situation. Why be opposed to something that hardly exists where you live? Just focus on the Vehicular Cycling principles and everything else should just fall into place for you.
Or maybe you don't really care about VC and are more concerned with your ego here on BF. I guess it's a lot easier to be against something than it is to be for something and try to get others to do it.
Brian
Being Judged by the guy who makes it up as he goes? No f'ing thankyou! But if I was judging, Pete and Zeytoun's first post seem to have hit it right on.
But what the heck (since I have no worries about winning and therefore being judged by old HH there)-
Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses
My vote goes to you.
Bekologist
I'm going with natutlukjohn on this one too.
It's a contest and helemt head gets to be the judge? oh, brother. that dude hardly rides.
buzzman
Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses
I vote for that one.
ooops! wait a minute what was I thinking. I don't get a vote! :eek:
Yikes! and what am I doing in the A&S forum :eek:
and OMG! I'm posting in response to this ridiculous thread!:crash:
uberleet
Best.Thread.Evar.
sbhikes
Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses
That sounds right.
joejack951
Pro-bikelane: Bike lanes remove the cyclist from the normal flow of traffic and thus minimize the dangers of on-road cycling.
Anti-bikelane: Bike lanes attempt to remove the cyclist from the normal flow of traffic and in doing so create more hazards than previously existed by forcing two seperate flows of traffic onto a roadway only designed for one.
chipcom
My entry: Bike lanes - they ain't just for dinner any more.
Bekologist
who's ever said bike lanes remove bicyclists from roadway traffic flow?
joejack951
who's ever said bike lanes remove bicyclists from roadway traffic flow?
I'll assume this is directed at my post. I read it ALL the time on this forum. It's even more common in other forums let alone amongst the general population. It's implicit in the term "bike lane."
Bekologist
i'd totally disagree with your assessment that bike lanes are designed to remove bikes from roadway traffic flow.
joejack951
i'd totally disagree with your assessment that bike lanes are designed to remove bikes from roadway traffic flow.
It's not my assessment. It's my statement of the pro-bike lane stance. Feel free to disagree but good luck finding a majority of pro-bike laners who agree with you.
genec
Well since HH liked this so much (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4500598&postcount=244)... I am just going to post it here for the contest...
The reasons I understand are that BL are not strictly vehicular; putting cyclists in positions that are not destination positioned and or putting cyclists in a place on the road that is not in compliance with the rules of the road; such as to the right of slower moving traffic... therefore BL are not part of the whole vehicular stance... another reason is that BL set certain expectations in motorists minds about where cyclists are supposed to be... and last, that BL are discriminatory in that they create a special "class" of vehicle with it's own rules.
However the above reasoning while having some merit, tends to fall on deaf ears because bicycles do not fully fit into the traffic pattern of faster moving traffic... Unlike the often given examples of cement trucks and tractors; bicycles are human power vehicles that have different "behaviour" patterns from powered vehicles (and yes I am speaking of cyclists verses vehicles... comparing humans to machines vice comparing the rights of cyclists to the rights of motorists). HPV have different speed and load patterns, and for the most part are a very narrow vehicle that can also easily merge with and operate with walking pedestrians in nearly any environment that peds also access (stairs being the limit).
So while the rights of the operators of each vehicle may be equal, the charateristics are not... and these charateristic differences should not be "equalized" by laws but should embraced and flaunted. We expect cars to go faster... we expect bicycles to "sneak" between cars at stops, we expect bikes to go slow up hills... we expect bikes to be able to access sidewalks. There are expectations based on realities that simply do not fit into a strictly vehicular picture.
In some cases cycling may mean being strictly vehicular... in others it may mean sidewalks and paths offer access to locations that autos cannot access. In some cases the road may be so designed that cyclists are at a severe disadvantage due to speed... do we then force all operators of other vehicles to acquiesce to the limitations of HPV, or do we simply provide different facilities? Where is the line we are willing to draw?
Where the vehicular only stance falls short is that being strictly vehicular misses embracing some of the unique charateristics of a bicycle... and attempts to force HPV to fit into the powered vehicle world.
Bike lanes are an attempt to capitalize on some of the charateristics of bikes while granting acceptable access to the roads... in an attempt to maintain the aforementioned rights of all users of the road. The result has been some perceived diminished rights to the road, but these diminished rights are not based on the designs of BL, but on the misconceptions of the powered vehicle operators and an overwhelming desire to give the majority vehicles on the road (with different operating charateristics) a majority of the road surface.
BL are not perfect... but then neither is strict vehicular cycling... the reality is that utilizing all the charateristics of a bike, an operator is likely to be in many different modes... and using BL are just part of the larger picture.
Helmet Head
It's not my assessment. It's my statement of the pro-bike lane stance. Feel free to disagree but good luck finding a majority of pro-bike laners who agree with you.
Yes, I think Bek is pretty unique in his position of thinking that bike lanes integrate cyclists with traffic flow. I think most bike lane supporters believe integration is not possible (whether they realize they believe this or not; whether they characterize their belief in these words or not) and they like bike lanes because they feel the stripe clarifies the segregation.
sggoodri
i'd totally disagree with your assessment that bike lanes are designed to remove bikes from roadway traffic flow.
I'm confused. You once wrote the following about vehicular cycling:
Why hasn't VC caught on, Diane? Because riders, as a group, don't want to ride in high speed traffic. cities with better planning for bicycling via infrastructure have more cyclists on the roads.
If bike lanes are not perceived to remove cyclists from the flow of traffic, which you say they don't want to ride in, then what makes the striped design better than the unstriped wide outside lanes of equal passing space that vehicular cyclists promote?
Helmet Head
I'm confused. You once wrote the following about vehicular cycling:
If bike lanes are not perceived to remove cyclists from the flow of traffic, which you say they don't want to ride in, then what makes the striped design better than the unstriped wide outside lanes of equal passing space that vehicular cyclists promote?
Perhaps what I said above does apply to Bek, especially the bolded part:
I think most bike lane supporters believe integration is not possible (whether they realize they believe this or not; whether they characterize their belief in these words or not) and they like bike lanes because they feel the stripe clarifies the segregation.
I-Like-To-Bike
I think most bike lane supporters believe integration is not possible (whether they realize they believe this or not; whether they characterize their belief in these words or not) ...
It is not even necessary for these supporters to be aware of their own beliefs! HH knows better!:eek: HH has learned well the technique from his guru of divining the unstated intentions/motivations of those who don't share his passions. This is too silly for further comment.
sbhikes
Bike lane haters: Paint make people ride incompetently
Bike lane supporters: Incompetence makes people ride incompetently
chipcom
Bike lane haters: Paint make people ride incompetently
Bike lane supporters: Incompetence makes people ride incompetently
Might as well stop the contest - we have a winner!
Helmet Head
I think most bike lane supporters believe integration is not possible (whether they realize they believe this or not; whether they characterize their belief in these words or not) ...
It is not even necessary for these supporters to be aware of their own beliefs! HH knows better!:eek: HH has learned well the technique from his guru of divining the unstated intentions/motivations of those who don't share his passions. This is too silly for further comment. "As with language, the principles that make up our moral grammar fly beneath the radar of our awareness." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 223
Most people are not aware of the principles that underlie their beliefs about anything. That's why they have such a hard time articulating why they hold the beliefs that they hold. They can't explain it, because they don't understand it.
I-Like-To-Bike
"As with language, the principles that make up our moral grammar fly beneath the radar of our awareness." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 223
Most people are not aware of the principles that underlie their beliefs about anything. That's why they have such a hard time articulating why they hold the beliefs that they hold. They can't explain it, because they don't understand it.
And you no doubt are under the delusion that you are the God of cycling who does know it all about what "they" really believe. What a crock. And you aren't funnin' us either; you really do believe your own line of stuff, doncha?
joejack951
I'm confused. You once wrote the following about vehicular cycling:
If bike lanes are not perceived to remove cyclists from the flow of traffic, which you say they don't want to ride in, then what makes the striped design better than the unstriped wide outside lanes of equal passing space that vehicular cyclists promote?
Thanks for that quote, Steve. That's exactly what I am talking about.
Helmet Head
And you no doubt are under the delusion that you are the God of cycling who does know it all about what "they" really believe. What a crock. And you aren't funnin' us either; you really do believe your own line of stuff, doncha? I think anyone who chooses to raise his or her awareness about the issues can see that most bike lane supporters don't really believe in car-bike integration, and seek to avoid it. Even Bek acknowledges this when he says, "Because riders, as a group, don't want to ride in high speed traffic." Are you really disagreeing with this?
natelutkjohn
I think anyone who chooses to raise his or her awareness about the issues can see that most bike lane supporters don't really believe in car-bike integration, and seek to avoid it. Even Bek acknowledges this when he says, "Because riders, as a group, don't want to ride in high speed traffic." Are you really disagreeing with this?
Riding in (as in the lane) high speed traffic and with (as in next to them on the same road) are two different things, integration is still there.
sggoodri
Riding in (as in the lane) high speed traffic and with (as in next to them on the same road) are two different things, integration is still there.
Between intersections/junctions, that works reasonably well.
But at intersections, destination positioning means that cycling with the corresponding vehicular traffic flow for your destination rather than beside traffic headed to the wrong destination requires leaving the striped curbside area, and cycling in traffic (rather than accross) to merge into the appropriate position.
As the intersection count increases, cycling next to traffic and experiencing more crossing events becomes progressively more hazardous than cycling in traffic. Vehicular cyclists prefer to choose between in and next to based on context without having to operate contrary to pavement markings.
Helmet Head
I think the difference between integration and segregation can sometimes be more mental than physical. In other words, two cyclists could be riding in the exact same position, and yet one is integrated and the other is segregated.
The difference is how they're thinking and paying attention, and it manifests itself with respect to not what is happening at that very moment, but maybe with respect to what is about to happen.
The integrated one, for example, would probably be aware that the car currently passing him is the last of a platoon, the gap behind that last car is a long one, they are approaching a junction with a midblock mall entrance/exit, there is oncoming traffic with potential left-turners, and he is preparing to merge left as soon as that last car passes him, in order to improve his sight lines to/from that mall entrance, to improve his safety buffer, and to improve his conspicuity to oncoming potential left-crossers and right-crossers traveling in and out of the mall entrance/exit. And most of the processing would be happening instinctively and effortlessly for the integrated cyclist.
A segregated cyclist in the exact same situation is more likely to be simply enjoying the ride, and probably oblivious to most of the traffic hazards that are about to unfold. It probably wouldn't occur to him to move left at this point.
sbhikes
Bike lane opposers: Bike lanes are the root of all mental illness, delusions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
Bike lane non-opposers: Sufferers of mental illness, delisions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
I REALLY want to win this contents.
natelutkjohn
I REALLY want to win this contents.
good luck! HH is the judge, he's voting for the person he agrees with, not the most votes, but I do vote for yours if that helps ;)
natelutkjohn
Between intersections/junctions, that works reasonably well.
But at intersections, destination positioning means that cycling with the corresponding vehicular traffic flow for your destination rather than beside traffic headed to the wrong destination requires leaving the striped curbside area, and cycling in traffic (rather than accross) to merge into the appropriate position.
As the intersection count increases, cycling next to traffic and experiencing more crossing events becomes progressively more hazardous than cycling in traffic. Vehicular cyclists prefer to choose between in and next to based on context without having to operate contrary to pavement markings.
Oh, I get it now, when a bikelane advocate talks about riding in a lane (or next to the cars), its called segregation, but when VC does it, its called choice... I think I finally saw the light!
Advocating for bike lanes does not mean advocating that you MUST ride in the bike lane. :rolleyes:
genec
I think the difference between integration and segregation can sometimes be more mental than physical. In other words, two cyclists could be riding in the exact same position, and yet one is integrated and the other is segregated.
The difference is how they're thinking and paying attention, and it manifests itself with respect to not what is happening at that very moment, but maybe with respect to what is about to happen.
The integrated one, for example, would probably be aware that the car currently passing him is the last of a platoon, the gap behind that last car is a long one, they are approaching a junction with a midblock mall entrance/exit, there is oncoming traffic with potential left-turners, and he is preparing to merge left as soon as that last car passes him, in order to improve his sight lines to/from that mall entrance, to improve his safety buffer, and to improve his conspicuity to oncoming potential left-crossers and right-crossers traveling in and out of the mall entrance/exit. And most of the processing would be happening instinctively and effortlessly for the integrated cyclist.
A segregated cyclist in the exact same situation is more likely to be simply enjoying the ride, and probably oblivious to most of the traffic hazards that are about to unfold. It probably wouldn't occur to him to move left at this point.
:D Not to dispell any of what you just said... but think about the mental state of the two cyclists you just contrasted. One is juggling timing, potentials, safety, and "his conspicuity," and the other is just riding along...
Who is likely to have less stress?
Of course two minutes later, one has reached their destination, and the other is awaiting an ambulance... ;)
Helmet Head
:D Not to dispell any of what you just said... but think about the mental state of the two cyclists you just contrasted. One is juggling timing, potentials, safety, and "his conspicuity," and the other is just riding along...
Who is likely to have less stress?
Of course two minutes later, one has reached their destination, and the other is awaiting an ambulance... ;)
Indeed, some stress can be good.
But I also think the stress associated with the processing required while riding "mentally integrated", as with any activity, lessens with practice and experience. Situations that used to stress me out on my commute when I first started doing it don't bother me at all anymore (and haven't for years).
I think bike lanes hinder the natural progression from stressful integration to low-stress integration by allowing the unitiated to travel in blissful ignorance riding in a "mentally segregated" state. It's like never removing the training wheels, or trying to learn to swim with a life jacket on.
By seeking to avoid stressful integration, whether it's riding in bike lanes on bike laned streets, or curb hugging and sidewalk cycling on unbikelaned streets, cyclists keep themselves from having the opportunity to make progress towards advanced and low-stress integration.
noisebeam
The Essence of BL Arguments is a fine blend of asphault and paint aromatics in an alcohol base sold in 32oz. squeeze bottles marketed to hookers, honkers, alpha dogs and the phobic.
Al
natelutkjohn
The Essence of BL Arguments is a fine blend of asphault and paint aromatics in an alcohol base sold in 32oz. squeeze bottles marketed to hookers, honkers, alpha dogs and the phobic.
Al
Now that's just stupid
John Forester
Bike lane opposers: Bike lanes are the root of all mental illness, delusions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
Bike lane non-opposers: Sufferers of mental illness, delisions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
I REALLY want to win this contents.
More very bad logic. Bike lanes are the result of two causes. One is the desire by motorists to push cyclists aside, as inferior roadway users, as evidenced by the history of their invention. The other is the emotion, created and fostered originally by motorists, that cyclists are inferior roadway users who need their own space to make them safe and legitimate. The items that sbhikes mentions as results are mostly causes. Furthermore, incompetent cycling is the result of America's sixty years or more insistence that cyclists are inferior roadway users. Therefore, incompetent cycling is the far earlier result of America's insistence that cyclists are inferior roadway users, while bike lanes are a later result.
Sbhikes's characterizations of cyclists who do not oppose bike lanes, presumably being those who actively advocate them and those who merely accept them, are more accurate, since bike lanes are the result of the cyclist-inferiority view. Any cyclist who believes that he or she is by nature inferior to motorists in ability to operate in traffic or in legal status as a roadway user might be the victim of mental illness, delusions, or phobia, or similar things to a lesser extent, although if that person is simply complying with what he or she has been taught, can be considered plain ignorant. Furthermore, all those characteristics are very likely to be accompanied by incompetent cycling. It is difficult to imagine a competent cyclist who suffered from any of these conditions.
zeytoun
Nice post, John, but there's no way you can win the contest, unless you can be more succinct.
May I suggest that you edit your post to something more like:
Diane, I fixed your post for you. Here is what I really think:
Bike lane opposers: Bike lanes are caused by mental illness, delusions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
There, that's better.
Bike lane non-opposers: Sufferers of mental illness, delisions, phobias and of course, incompetent cycling.
Yes. This one actually didn't need changing. I agree 100%.
Remember:
This thread is a contest!
Let's see who can state the essence of the pro-Bike Lane and anti-BL positions most succinctly.
genec
Indeed, some stress can be good.
But I also think the stress associated with the processing required while riding "mentally integrated", as with any activity, lessens with practice and experience. Situations that used to stress me out on my commute when I first started doing it don't bother me at all anymore (and haven't for years).
I think bike lanes hinder the natural progression from stressful integration to low-stress integration by allowing the unitiated to travel in blissful ignorance riding in a "mentally segregated" state. It's like never removing the training wheels, or trying to learn to swim with a life jacket on.
By seeking to avoid stressful integration, whether it's riding in bike lanes on bike laned streets, or curb hugging and sidewalk cycling on unbikelaned streets, cyclists keep themselves from having the opportunity to make progress towards advanced and low-stress integration.
I am not going to disagree with you... there is some merit in what you are saying... but bear in mind that some folks never go into the water without life jackets... and that suits them just fine. Some motorists never go on freeways. Some folks will never be comfortable with a command line. Some cyclists ride three wheel bikes (sorry Diane... ;) ) Some folks never go to college. Can't all these folks still be "accomodated?"
LittleBigMan
This thread is a contest!
Let's see who can state the essence of the pro-Bike Lane and anti-BL positions most succinctly.
Honestly, my friend, the position I can state most succinctly is my own. My position is not pro- nor anti-bike lane. I see both sides of this equation. My only qualifier is that bike lanes manifest themselves as equal to, or better than, the unmodified roadways they compete with, else they are of little use to me. They must make cycling better for me, if I am to support them for myself. If they don't make cycling better for me, I can support them to a degree for those who do find they make cycling better for them, but I also strongly desire they are designed and maintained intelligently for my sake.
As a realist, I recognize that bike lanes, like all other forms of transportational infrastructure we have come to accept as commonplace in modern American cities, are a fact of life I must adapt to. Not that I prefer many of their forms...I would also prefer that roadways be made better for cycling, as well. Just that if bike lanes are going to be built, I must adapt to them as I do to other roadway conditions.
However, adapting to bike lanes seems to me to defeat the purpose of them in the first place. Therefore, I reiterate they should equal or surpass the roadways they compete with for improving cycling. Else, what's a bike lane for?
Helmet Head
I am not going to disagree with you... there is some merit in what you are saying... but bear in mind that some folks never go into the water without life jackets... and that suits them just fine. Some motorists never go on freeways. Some folks will never be comfortable with a command line. Some cyclists ride three wheel bikes (sorry Diane... ;) ) Some folks never go to college. Can't all these folks still be "accomodated?" Sure, but there are consequences.
The folks in life jackets are free to float around in their pools, but it won't be much fun, and if they ever fall into deep water, they are likely to drown. So we don't discourage folks from learning how to swim.
The motorists who don't go on freeways are probably not going to be able to drive between SF and LA, at least not in a very reasonable amount of time. So we don't discourage driving students from learning how to drive on freeways.
The folks who are uncomfortable with command lines will never write shell scripts. So we don't discourage programmers from learning command lines.
Those who don't go to college will have doors shut. Thus we don't do things to encourage people to not go to college.
And those who seek to think and feel segregated while cycling in traffic are probably going to have more than their fair share of crashes. And advocates, lawmakers and engineers have no business encouraging or facilitating that, which is what supporting and building bike lanes does.
natelutkjohn
Nice post, John, but there's no way you can win the contest, unless you can be more succinct....
somehow, I think he already won.... it's the name
genec
Sure, but there are consequences.
The folks in life jackets are free to float around in their pools, but it won't be much fun, and if they ever fall into deep water, they are likely to drown. So we don't discourage folks from learning how to swim.
The motorists who don't go on freeways are probably not going to be able to drive between SF and LA, at least not in a very reasonable amount of time. So we don't discourage driving students from learning how to drive on freeways.
The folks who are uncomfortable with command lines will never write shell scripts. So we don't discourage programmers from learning command lines.
Those who don't go to college will have doors shut. Thus we don't do things to encourage people to not go to college.
And those who seek to think and feel segregated while cycling in traffic are probably going to have more than their fair share of crashes. And advocates, lawmakers and engineers have no business encouraging or facilitating that, which is what supporting and building bike lanes does.
Meanwhile those folks that wear PFDs do just fine in deep water... they float there too.
And those folks that don't drive on freeways, enjoy the train...
And folks that don't program are called users, and the world is full of them and programmers wouldn't have a thing to do without them.
And those that don't go to college... Well they do everything from flip burgers to run companies... some have even become president.
Oh what the heck... those cyclists that don't fit your mold, just send them to sidewalks... Because in a democratic society, we try to accomodate the needs of all, not just the few.
Helmet Head
somehow, I think he already won.... it's the name
Folks, it's a playful contest with a meaningless prize. Obsessing about who will judge, or how it will be judged, or who will win, is ridiculous.
Helmet Head
Oh what the heck... those cyclists that don't fit your mold, just send them to sidewalks... Because in a democratic society, we try to accomodate the needs of all, not just the few. Of course, but we don't accomodate the needs of the blind by giving them loaded guns.
Enticing the uninitiated with bike lanes to ride on roads for which they are not prepared is like accomodating the blind with loaded guns. It's irresponsible.
natelutkjohn
Folks, it's a playful contest with a meaningless prize. Obsessing about who will judge, or how it will be judged, or who will win, is ridiculous.
Exactly, so why post it, and obsess over it? I love that after the fact, the house is burining down, I didn't mean to light that fire in the bathroom stuff - priceless man, just priceless. Especialy since the person you quoted made a joke entry (sort of).... I just like to see you squirm is all :roflmao:
.
.
.
.
Oh, read post #48, talk about obsessing
Helmet Head
Exactly, so why post it, and obsess over it? I love that after the fact, the house is burining down, I didn't mean to light that fire in the bathroom stuff - priceless man, just priceless. Especialy since the person you quoted made a joke entry (sort of).... I just like to see you squirm is all :roflmao:
.
.
.
.
Oh, read post #48, talk about obsessing
Zeyton is able to get me to squirm once in a while But you don't even come close.
There is nothing after the fact going on here, genius. The OP clearly states the only prize is "Recognition and adulation from forum members", which is naturally determined by the posts themselves, not by something I pick.
The purpose of the thread is to encourage folks to try to articulate the two positions on this BL issue.