Re: [RBW] Been Thinkin'....

[jimD]

Nicely done Mr. Fiend!

Once a again a  tip of  my  web hat to the fine job you do keeping this a great forum.

-JimD

On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Cyclofiend Jim wrote:

.... that if we feel the urge to have a helmet discussion, it needs to be a new one.
 
A new discussion.
A new way of looking at the subject.  
And I'm not in any way sure that can actually occur.  

I've been bumping around the interwebs since dial-up days, and have seen only a few topics turn truly, utterly and mind-numbingly ugly on a uniformly consistent basis. Helmets is one of those.

 I've never seen it end well. I've watched good folks who I knew and respected, other folks who seemed to fly in for the fight, and a whole lot of howling and sniping and cut-quoting.   My personal view is that helmets is a topic where everyone starts out with the best intentions, but it devolves and becomes a harsher and more strident environment.

Which is one of the things I'd hoped to avoid in this list.    

And just to say it clearly and loudly, we by and large have done so - avoided it, I mean. Thanks everyone who kept their head cool and presented facts, tried to keep a lid on a relentlessly explosive topic, or wisely took it off-list.  I'm aware of how the topic got brought up, and how it specifically relates to Grant's writings and statements, and by extension how it could be related to this list.

Thanks for no name callin', and no "oh yeah, so's yer old man!" positions being taken.

I don't think any other group could have pulled it off so well.   I'm just asking that we let it sit now (ok, I've actually locked the topic, so, it's a pretty strong "ask") and take a couple steps back and not pick it up again.

Because, it's an every-steepening slope with increasingly slicker sides.

As for that "new way" I mentioned above.  I have no idea what it is - whether we have the ability to have the discussion without a lot of other things operating.  Some of those things are well and fine, and others may be not even recognized impulses and reactiions.

The only thing I can think to use as an analogy is when you are out in a boat and suddenly the fog creeps in tight.  You can see the water but as soon as you lift your vision up, landmarks are gone, perspective is skewed and it becomes a sudden, strange world. The best thing to do is first recognize that you are in the situation. Then figure out the best way to calmly and safely withdraw.

There are probably some places to discuss the topic, to make the case or prove the point.  But, my suggestion is that we not do so in this group.

Thanks and thanks to all for their contributions.

- Jim / List Admin

Jim Edgar / Cyclofiend.com / cyclo...@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/uLy1LYkcvDQJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Lyle Bogart]

Indeed, very nicely done! It is a curious thing that this topic can be so volatile. . . and it is a wonderful thing that the discussion did remain as civil as it did.

 

Thanks for all you do keeping the list going, Jim!

 

Cheers!

 

lyle

--
lyle f bogart dpt

156 bradford rd

wiscasset, me 04578

207.882.6494

206.794.6937

[Bruce Herbitter]

so, changing topics, how's about a cyclofiend web page update? Seems like the last current classic update was in Feb. Then we can all civilly debate paint schemes, (Should HELMETS be painted to match your frame?) lugs vs welded, etc... :)

[Jeremy Till]

Amen.  Really appreciate your efforts, Cyclofiend Jim! 

-jeremy

[Joe Bunik]

Stick to the lugged vs. CF helmet debate, pls. TIG'd option???
=- Joe Bunik
Walnut Creek, CA

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Discussing this topic in a different way is a puzzle, isn't it? On my (helmet-free) ride to work today, I thought of an article I read several years ago, about brain scientists identifying brain structure differences between political conservatives and political liberals. Finally an explanation of why these two groups can't understand each other! The difference was primarily in identification of and response to risks. The conservatives tended to have enlarged brain sectors that were wired to identify and rapidly respond to risks. In other words: "there's a risk, kill it!" The liberals tended to be enlarged in the sectors that handle analysis and nuance. In other words: "this may or may not be a risk, study it some more!" Not sure if order of causality has yet been established. I don't know if politics correlates to helmet attitudes, but it seems like the same pattern exists here. On one hand, you have the helmet proponents who relate strongly to graphic examples of cracked skulls, and on the other hand, you have the group (typified by GP, I'd say) who seemingly cannot relate to graphic examples and who tend to spend lots of bandwidth picking apart the flaws in the statistics.

I suspect it'll take lots more arguing to modify our brain structures until we all agree!

[Steve Palincsar]

So you're saying the conservatives favor helmets and liberals do not?

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Now, Steve, I assume you're being humorous, but I can't say for sure because I've learned over the years that you and I most likely have very different personalities (based only on the limiting medium of this discussion forum). I bet we have different brain structure, even if similar intelligence. But no, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps some PhD student will identify and analyze that correlation someday, but my PhD years are well behind me!

All I'm saying is that we seem to have two sides in this debate (as in politics), and for the most part they talk past each other because, I believe, our brains are wired to light up in response to different inputs. It would be nice if there was an objectively "right" answer that perfectly intelligent people could agree on!

[PATRICK MOORE]

I suggest we leave sociobiology out of this discussion.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/0L54ao9Iwg8J.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
"Believe nothing until it has been officially denied."
                                                   -- Claude Cockburn

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[Ron Mc]

I think the other thread was safer - at least for those wearing helmets

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Just so everyone is clear, I never said, or meant to suggest, directly or indirectly, that your political leanings are inextricably tied to your helmet attitude. The point was that there may be biological reasons why we find agreement difficult, or impossible. In that case, convincing arguments will generally be fruitless.

But there is a similarity in that it is a seemingly irreconcilable issue and each of the two opposing camps seem to not place any importance on the argument of the other side. Most of us would like to think that we come by our attitudes and beliefs through a process of informed logic, but that is probably not 100% true, of course, because we tend to weigh certain "facts" more heavily than others for various reasons. A classic nature vs nurture puzzle. If intelligent people exposed to the same information cannot come to an agreement, then maybe intelligence and information are not the only determining factors.

[James Warren]

Jim,

First off, thanks for everything you do to maintain a really great forum. And thanks for all the many smart contributions from members. As a follow up to what Jim wrote about the helmet conversation, I'd like to offer the following suggestion.

 

Going back to when the forum began after Rivendell stopped running it, the forum has been of extremely high quality for I believe three reasons:

 

1) The moderation efforts of Jim E.

2) The intelligence of the members and applying that intelligence to the discussions.

3) The very focused original definition of the forum.

 

To keep things very focused, I remember the forum being defined as a place to discuss Rivendell products. I remember this definition being in contrast to the BOB list where list volume is much greater, because there, they discuss things that are "BOBish" which opens the door to many other arenas. One of our strengths has been our focus on the products that Rivendell sells.

 

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we consider that the mere event of Grant mentioning a topic does not qualify that topic as being in line with the definition of the forum. For example, his current blog shows the unique sculpture in Chicago called The Bean. His mentioning of that doesn't make it on-topic for this forum. On the other hand, if that same blog speculates on some feature of a possible upcoming Rivendell product, then that part is on-topic. Grant's mention of a helmet article would be in the category of something the he finds interesting, and many of us might as well, but is not within the scope of this forum.

 

Thanks for reading,

Jim W.

 

p.s. This suggestion will do nothing to affect any future high trail/low trail debates, because Riv sells forks! : )

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Herbitter
Sent: Oct 3, 2012 8:39 AM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Been Thinkin'....

so, changing topics, how's about a cyclofiend web page update? Seems like the last current classic update was in Feb. Then we can all civilly debate paint schemes, (Should HELMETS be painted to match your frame?) lugs vs welded, etc... :)

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Lyle Bogart <lyleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, very nicely done! It is a curious thing that this topic can be so volatile. . . and it is a wonderful thing that the discussion did remain as civil as it did.

 

Thanks for all you do keeping the list going, Jim!

 

Cheers!

 

lyle

On 3 October 2012 01:26, Cyclofiend Jim <cyclo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

.... that if we feel the urge to have a helmet discussion, it needs to be a new one.
  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[PATRICK MOORE]

I meant sociobiology as a theory -- it has come under much criticism recently and, intrinsically, doesn't make sense anyway, just as any other reductionist theory of knowing. I don't mean to pick a fight at all; I just feel obliged to say that sociobiology is not a good tool by which to analyze this (or any other) value or opinion.

My only other comment on this thread will be to urge anyone who has some definite statistics on the dangers of cycling and the related value of helmets to please post sources and links. I myself will immediately start using a helmet if it can be proved (1) that cycling is statistically significantly more dangerous than other common activities and (2) helmets help reduce this statistical risk. Again, not trolling, not being snide: I really want to know.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/eubNqI6-a-0J.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Stephen S]

How about we just let the old thread, this thread, and any future threads on helmets die? It seems that this thread brought everything the topic back up again under the guise about talking about the discussion of helmets. 

just saying

Stephen

[Cyclofiend Jim]

Jim -

Thanks for bringing topic #3 up, as it's been on my mind consistently, but sharing it has been delayed repeatedly.  (For some reason, my schedule for getting a "State of the List Report" to the List has been similar to GP's for publishing a Reader of late...)  Anyway, back when we had only 1300 or so members in this rag-tag gang, I did share a few thoughts about topics - which were archived yonder - http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/listupdate/index.html

Short Version:
"On topic is good."

Also, a corollary axiom:
"Take the position that every other post has been made with a smile behind it. If you can't do so - either when posting or reading - that's a particularly good time to take a break"

- J / Cyclofiend


- Jim

[dougP]

Jim E:

Thanks for all your work on this group. We do need to be reminded
from time to time what's relevant and actually topical. Fortunately
we have enough technical stuff to absorb most of our non-riding
energy.

It's fall, daylights getting shorter, bikes need overhauling, new
parts, racks, etc. Perhaps soon we'll the next mystery bike / tire /
accessory from RBWHQ to obsess over. It just hit me: wonder how the
new front rack is coming?

dougP

On Oct 3, 4:38 pm, Cyclofiend Jim <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim -
>
> Thanks for bringing topic #3 up, as it's been on my mind consistently, but
> sharing it has been delayed repeatedly.  (For some reason, my schedule for
> getting a "State of the List Report" to the List has been similar to GP's
> for publishing a Reader of late...)  Anyway, back when we had only 1300 or
> so members in this rag-tag gang, I did share a few thoughts about topics -

> which were archived yonder -http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/listupdate/index.html

> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Lyle Bogart <lyleb...@gmail.com<javascript:>

> > > wrote:
>
> >> Indeed, very nicely done! It is a curious thing that this topic can be so
> >> volatile. . . and it is a wonderful thing that the discussion did remain as
> >> civil as it did.
>
> >> Thanks for all you do keeping the list going, Jim!
>
> >> Cheers!
>
> >> lyle
>

> >>  On 3 October 2012 01:26, Cyclofiend Jim <cyclo...@earthlink.net<javascript:>

> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> .... that if we feel the urge to have a helmet discussion, it needs to
> >>> be a new one.
>
> >> --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> > .

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dougP]

Jim:

I read this & thought "helmets & politics in ONE post; what is he
thinking? He'll be banned for life from this list!"

But then it hit me: that sly sense of humor slithering down the
stairway.

dougP

On Oct 3, 9:56 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I've received several offlist replies, all of which seemingly presumed something about my personal politics. I must've been sly indeed since none of them agreed with each other!

In politics as well as helmet wars, the other side consistently has it totally wrong ;)

[Ron Mc]

don't sweat it, Jim.  politics is one subject where the anonymity of the internet often brings out the basal in many.  Diverse opinions are what makes the world interesting.  

[Matthew J]

Wow!  I go on a quickie four day tour and missed a lot of fun! 

As always, thanks to Cyclofiend Jim for keeping such a wonderful list.  And thanks to Jim Thill for keeping things unique, provocative and fun. 

 

My trip took me to LaCrosse, Wi, then back south on the Minnesota, Iowa side of the Mississippi and back to Chicago across Southwestern Wi and Northeastern Il.  One of these days I am going to have to take the Amtrak all the way to Minneapolis just to drop in on the Hiawatha shop.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Matthew: Hiawatha Cyclery isn't by itself worth the trip. But May in Minneapolis is a darned fine time/place to be with a bike. Let me know when you're coming and I'll show you some secret spots to ride.

[Montclair BobbyB]

Say, here's an idea... Let's start a satirical Google Group and call it "Helmet War"????  Like screaming curses into a paper bag when I'm fed up, this could be a no-holds barred forum with no rules; just enter at your own peril, and simply regard the scorch marks on the back of your head (as you flee for your life) as the price of pure entertainment ... I'm only being half-facetious.  My real point is that people need a place to speak their minds and where they can (and should) laugh at themselves... If we can't do that here, honestly why are we wasting our breath having a dialogue in the first place?... This is the land of free speech, of free ideas.  That's not to say we shouldn't point out to each other when we're going off-topic, being mean-spirited or just plan pig-headed... but to suggest we not speak of certain topics because they may fan a few flames or spark healthy debate is contrary to the very principle of a forum.

I have great respect for everyone on this forum (especially Jim, our unselfish moderator), and I hope that's shared by all.  But I left the iBOB group because I felt we were being challenged to stay within a certain box.  Are we suggesting to create one here?

Respectfully yours,

Bobby "please don't box me in" Birmingham

[James Warren]

 

It wouldn't be a newly created box now. The box was created when the RBW forum was originally defined. The original definition of this forum was to discuss Riv parts and products and Riv-inspired riding activities. This narrow definition made it more restricted than iBOB.   

 

I recall there being sentiment that the things outside the box had value but that people could go to other forums for those things. I always thought the reason behind the narrow definition of RBW was to keep message volume more manageable.

 

If I'm remembering it wrong, I apologize. No big deal. It's always fun here.

 

-Jim W.

[rob markwardt]

That's a pretty big box! For a much more "contained" container visit
the CR list. The rigidity is actually kind of refreshing.

> >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/*
> >>>>> *msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/**0L54ao9Iwg8J<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/0L54ao9Iwg8J>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@**
> >>>>> googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >>>>> group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en>
> >>>>> .

>
> >>>> --
> >>>> "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied."
> >>>>                                                    -- Claude Cockburn
>
> >>>> -------------------------
> >>>> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
> >>>> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW

> >>>>http://resumespecialties.com/**index.html<http://resumespecialties.com/index.html>

[Brewster Fong]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:27:50 PM UTC-7, Montclair BobbyB wrote:

Say, here's an idea... Let's start a satirical Google Group and call it "Helmet War"????  Like screaming curses into a paper bag when I'm fed up, this could be a no-holds barred forum with no rules; just enter at your own peril, and simply regard the scorch marks on the back of your head (as you flee for your life) as the price of pure entertainment ... I'm only being half-facetious.  My real point is that people need a place to speak their minds and where they can (and should) laugh at themselves... If we can't do that here, honestly why are we wasting our breath having a dialogue in the first place?... This is the land of free speech, of free ideas.  That's not to say we shouldn't point out to each other when we're going off-topic, being mean-spirited or just plan pig-headed... but to suggest we not speak of certain topics because they may fan a few flames or spark healthy debate is contrary to the very principle of a forum.

 OK, I'll bite, here's an old one:

As someone who is "PRO-CHOICE," I will protect my rights and those of thousands of others with the right to choose - the right to use tubular tires! I don't use tubulars, never will, but I will fight to protect the right of those who do. Yes, it may be wrong (what do you do when you get more flats than the number of tires you carry?) Yes, it may be messy (all that glue...), and Yes, you need to know how to sew (ugh, butterfingers...) But those who "choose" to ride tubular have the same rights as the rest of us and hey, if they believe it gives them an "advantage," they might as well learn how to remove and replace them, safely, successfully, responsibly ....

 

In contrast, all those "right to lifers" are always screaming about the horrors and dangers of tubular - inducing panic or causign serious public inconvenience or alarm about tubular tires rolling off rims or glue melting on long descents causing massive death and destruction to the unwary clincher users. These "right to lifers" are always saying "abstinence,” “self-restraint,” and “self-denial” of the use of tubular tires is is the only way to stop this death and destruction....

 But let's not forget, there will always be people who ride tubulars, whether its legal or not, moral or not, foolish or not, therefore, in order to protect the rights and safety of not only tubular users but all cyclists everywhere, it needs to be legal and safe....Brewster "Roll v. Walk" Fong

[Brian Campbell]

Helmet debate=Insanely boring..