View Single Post
Old 10-08-11, 04:56 AM
  #10  
HokuLoa
Blissketeer
 
HokuLoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You know Slim, I actually popped back in to openly alter/retract my post with a strikethrough and a softened approach but being called a liar is where I draw the line. I don't lie and I approach everything sincerely and rationally even if my objectivity isn't always conveyed through the web. So I'll leave my prior post unedited and just address your latest so try not to assume I'm being condescending.

Originally Posted by SlimRider
I'll do what I wish. Thank you very much. You're lying. Show where in the least I'm being bias. You can't and nobody can, because it's simply not true. You just like the feeling of being a part of a group, so that you may once again feel a sense of belonging.... We do like that feeling, don't we?
Your polling question right off the bat is the start of your bias as it establishes the assumption of a dead bike. The polling options solidify that bias further by leaving only two possible groups to respond (those with a dead bike or those with a still working bike over 15yrs). You excluded the vast majority of the population (aluminum bike owners) by your wording. In polling this NECESSARILY leads to a set of results that are fundamentally biased do to the format of the poll. This has nothing to do with ME wanting inclusion. I actually am both excluded and included which is another problem entirely with the poll.

Originally Posted by SlimRider
Once again, you're lying. I've never railed against aluminum or carbon fiber. I merely discussed both their strengths and weaknesses objectively. I also, never made the statement, "that only steel is real", so once again, you're lying. I've always felt as though carbon fiber is the material of the future and even stated as much, in my "What ever happened to steel" post. That will show you right there that you are at the very least, exaggerating.
However, just recently, I was astounded by the apparent magnitude of strength shown by carbon as well as its extensively long fatigue life. I still have doubts about its shock-resistance. Also, I have always been a moderate proponent of aluminum. It's just that I prefer steel and would also prefer that the bicycle industry pass along the savings in the production and manufacturing of aluminum bicycles. Get your facts straight and keep them straight for now on please. It's very unfair for you to fasely accuse people of anything that they are not guilty.
Yeah, now I think maybe YOU need a little "honesty" check. For a period you emphatically and repeatedly posted that AL and CF had no place in the consumer bike market. You did so with a thread you titled "the AL hoax" (paraphrased) which you conveniently asked be removed unless I am mistaken. You went on and on about the inferiority of AL frames and how they would not last, were fundamentally weak, and were not suitable for consumers. You most certainly did rail against AL and CF with your opinionated but almost completely unsupported "science." All this while your sig claimed "only steel is suitable for touring" and other such nonsense. So you call ME a liar???! Please....

As for you objectivity, you continued to rail despite numerous members with well established reputations and professional qualifications respectfully pointing out your scientific inaccuracies as well as other theoretical fallacies. You had your opinion, and quantifiable facts clearly did not matter to you. So in that light with this latest biased poll, does it not seem logical for others to question YOUR objectivity??

I've not lied and MY facts are straight. I don't pump myself as some authority but I do voice opinion when I know what I'm talking about. In this case you have indeed shown a long history of bias in regards to frame material and whether this latest poll reflects that particular bias or not, it IS without a doubt biased. At least have the intellectual integrity to admit that even if you are going to play revisionist to your own BF history.

Originally Posted by SlimRider
I know when I'm liked and when I'm not liked. I don't need anyone to explain that to me for certain. Insofar as BS is concerned. There's one thing about about me, I don't BS. I might have fun, but it will be painfully obvious that my intent is to have fun. However, BS is not my forte. I would attribute that more to you than, myself.
Few things are well-explained within this forum. I can only think of a handful of people who seriously attempt of dispense accurate information with some modicum of politeness and civility.
I'm often not sure you do Slim. "Politeness" aside, I've seen you completely dismiss valid and well supported counters to your claims with the "you don't like me" attitude. This is the web and not everyone uses emoticons and flowery language. For me "civility" is not calling someone a liar when not once have they lied. Calling someone's claims BS is perfectly civil when you've laid out perfectly how inaccurate they are. Rough and tumble maybe but perfectly civil. Not personal, but brutally honest. So you can play revisionist and call me a liar who dispenses BS but I can establish clearly where that description aptly fits you but I defy you to substantiate that claim in my posts. If you could I'd be the first to admit it and apologize if it was an inaccuracy about you. Sadly though Slim, that isn't the case and you post enough about it that I'm not the only one who knows it.

So for now, I wish you best and no ill will but do consider for a moment that others are acutely aware when your bias intentionally or otherwise creeps its way into your threads even if you remain unaware. So when that bias fosters an inaccurate perception of our collective cycling reality it most most definitely rubs many of us the wrong way....
HokuLoa is offline