What they said about Harleys was true! Factory RECALL!!!!
c
Excerpt from the letter HD sent me after I bought a 2010 this summer:
"On [my 2010 Road King Classic], the fuel tank front mounts may
distort in reaction to severe frame damage from a frontal collision.
This condition may cause a fuel leak at the weld of the front bracket
to the tunnel. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may
result in a fire, which could lead to injury or death to the rider."
Just thought i'd share....
Safe rides ^_^
-c
Road Glidin' Don
The best solution for this is to not wear your seat belt while riding
your Harley. That way, if the bike collides hard enough for the tank
to break and catch fire, you'll already be sailing through the air,
far from the danger.
HTH ;)
don (Calgary)
You have to consider the incidental damage though. All of these
exploding Harleys could take out small dogs and cats in the ensuing
fires.
Clearly new legislation would be required to mandate annual
inspections, otherwise we might be seen to be condoning incest which
would lead to anarchy. I heard that from a very well known, but
anonymous journalist. ;-)
The Older Gentleman
<snip>
Serious question.
Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Ben Kaufman
<d.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is that "best solution" being used for a cage.
(warning: swallow all beverages before watching this video)
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/28/driving-on-ice-in-pa.html
Ben
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Serious question.
>
>Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
>like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
>
>You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
>
>I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
Oh get over yourself you pompous idiot. It was a joke. A little
mocking humour.
If you can't take a little ribbing for some of the stupid stuff you
post in this forum, move on.
c
that's a hell of a video!!!!
c
true enough, i certainly hope to get a safe distance away from the
bike if we go down
i believe it was PJM a year or so ago who gifted the analogy: imagine
you're a nut, and the bike is a nutcracker...
or something to that effect .... my last mishap, the one that ended me
up with a little road rash, a concussion, and a fiancee, put enough
experience behind those words to cause me to echo them to others
seriously though ... what if you just happen to hit something, a truck
that pulls out in front of you, and you splat with the bike (which
explodes)? shit...
in other news, you made me laugh, and that sort of makes up for some
of your previous responses to my posts .... so... thanks?
Road Glidin' Don
> On Dec 30, 2:31 pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 12:02 pm, c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://roadkingclassic.wordpress.com/
>
> > > Excerpt from the letter HD sent me after I bought a 2010 this summer:
>
> > > "On [my 2010 Road King Classic], the fuel tank front mounts may
> > > distort in reaction to severe frame damage from a frontal collision.
> > > This condition may cause a fuel leak at the weld of the front bracket
> > > to the tunnel. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may
> > > result in a fire, which could lead to injury or death to the rider."
>
> > > Just thought i'd share....
>
> > > Safe rides ^_^
>
> > The best solution for this is to not wear your seat belt while riding
> > your Harley. That way, if the bike collides hard enough for the tank
> > to break and catch fire, you'll already be sailing through the air,
> > far from the danger.
>
> > HTH ;)
>
> true enough, i certainly hope to get a safe distance away from the
> bike if we go down
>
> i believe it was PJM a year or so ago who gifted the analogy: imagine
> you're a nut, and the bike is a nutcracker...
>
> or something to that effect .... my last mishap, the one that ended me
> up with a little road rash, a concussion, and a fiancee, put enough
> experience behind those words to cause me to echo them to others
Well, at least you got a fiancee outta the deal. Not a complete
loss. ;)
> seriously though ... what if you just happen to hit something, a truck
> that pulls out in front of you, and you splat with the bike (which
> explodes)? shit...
I'd guess you're probably dead then anyway (if you hit the truck hard
enough for the tank to explode).
> in other news, you made me laugh, and that sort of makes up for some
> of your previous responses to my posts .... so... thanks?
Hey, that's what they pay me here for. Keep them 2 wheels pointed
down.
Road Glidin' Don
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Serious question.
>
> Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
> like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
>
> You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
>
> I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
Heh, heh. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, TOG.
That statement of Don's was pretty hilarious (I thought so, anyway)
and I am absolutely certain it wasn't meant as a put down. [1]
[1] He lives too close by and knows I can find him. ;)
Road Glidin' Don
That's good!
The Older Gentleman
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:17:34 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Serious question.
> >
> >Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
> >like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
> >
> >You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
> >
> >I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
>
> Oh get over yourself you pompous idiot. It was a joke. A little
> mocking humour.
Oh, the "it was only a troll" excuse. The last refuge of a total loser.
>
> If you can't take a little ribbing for some of the stupid stuff you
> post in this forum, move on.
Oh, right. "Gentle ribbing". My, my, you'll have the chain off that
bicycle if you back-pedal any faster. Suddenly realised what a prat you
look, after your efforts over the last day or so, I suppose :-))
The inadequate waters of your idiotic insults just slide off the duck's
back of my indifference, I'm afraid. All I do is grin as you dig
yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
But what I said is true: you really are coming over as someone
embittered and sad. Not one of life's successes, really.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:17:34 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Serious question.
>> >
>> >Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
>> >like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
>> >
>> >You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
>> >
>> >I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
>>
>> Oh get over yourself you pompous idiot. It was a joke. A little
>> mocking humour.
>
>Oh, the "it was only a troll" excuse. The last refuge of a total loser.
>>
>> If you can't take a little ribbing for some of the stupid stuff you
>> post in this forum, move on.
>
>Oh, right. "Gentle ribbing". My, my, you'll have the chain off that
>bicycle if you back-pedal any faster. Suddenly realised what a prat you
>look, after your efforts over the last day or so, I suppose :-))
>
>The inadequate waters of your idiotic insults just slide off the duck's
>back of my indifference, I'm afraid. All I do is grin as you dig
>yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
>
>But what I said is true: you really are coming over as someone
>embittered and sad. Not one of life's successes, really.
You really are full of yourself.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
The Older Gentleman
> Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Oh, *right*
"You are a lying asshole. And that is being kind to you."
"lies and deception have become second nature for you"
Tell you what, sweetie, bung in a smiley or two next time and then I'll
know it's a joke, OK?
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
>
>Oh, *right*
>
>"You are a lying asshole. And that is being kind to you."
>
>"lies and deception have become second nature for you"
Now you are jumping back to a different discussion in a different
thread. You really need to work harder at keeping up.
Those were just statements of fact. You have a long and proven track
record that supports both statements.
>
>Tell you what, sweetie, bung in a smiley or two next time and then I'll
>know it's a joke, OK?
Now the joke was in this thread and I thought it was funny. Still do.
By the way, using endearing terms such as "sweetie" makes you sound
even more like Krusty. ;-)
The Older Gentleman
>
> Now you are jumping back to a different discussion in a different
> thread. You really need to work harder at keeping up.
It's only what you did: repeating the same tired mantra in another
thread. Oh, I suppose you forgot that you did it.
> Those were just statements of fact. You have a long and proven track
> record that supports both statements.
Ah, really. Is this another joke? We need to be certain, you know.
Now, since you've dodged the question twice, let's raise it a third
time.
What are these "obvious questions" which are raised by my deciding not
to let you and Krusty view the article that I wrote.
I mean, if they're so obvious, nobody else seems to have worked them
out. So name them, please. Third time of asking. If you don't, of
course, then I'll just assume you were joking or trolling. Take your
pick.
Tell you what: you name 'em and I might even put up the article. But I
don't think you will.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
>Tell you what: you name 'em and I might even put up the article. But I
>don't think you will.
Holy fuck!!!!
That was classic Moto!!!!
***cue the Twilight Zone music***
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:17:34 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
> > (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > >don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > ><snip>
>
> > >Serious question.
>
> > >Have you *any* idea how big an arsehole you're making yourself look
> > >like, and in front of RGD, who more than tolerates you?
>
> > >You really are turning into a very sad, embittered and obsessive person.
>
> > >I take that as a compliment, actually. You're a work in progress.
>
> > Oh get over yourself you pompous idiot. It was a joke. A little
> > mocking humour.
>
> Oh, the "it was only a troll" excuse. The last refuge of a total loser.
>
>
>
> > If you can't take a little ribbing for some of the stupid stuff you
> > post in this forum, move on.
>
> Oh, right. "Gentle ribbing". My, my, you'll have the chain off that
> bicycle if you back-pedal any faster. Suddenly realised what a prat you
> look, after your efforts over the last day or so, I suppose :-))
>
> The inadequate waters of your idiotic insults just slide off the duck's
> back of my indifference, I'm afraid.
Really? It sure doesn't look that way from here!
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Hey, that's what they pay me here for. Keep them 2 wheels pointed
> down.
You get PAID? Damn it, that's just not fair.
Road Glidin' Don
Whoops. My contract states that I am not supposed to divulge that.
The Older Gentleman
The more I tweak him, the more stupid he looks. He's turning into an
accomplished liar, which makes it all the more amusing. A work in
progress.
The Older Gentleman
All right, let me spell it out for you.
You and Krusty have both insinuated that it doesn't exist. Phrases like
"claim to have written", "put up or shut up", and suggesting that by my
not letting you see it, "obvious questions" are raised, indicate this.
This makes you look very stupid. Again.
Vito
"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote
Bite your tongue!! If Pelosie or Ried hear that they'll recall congress to
pass just such a bill.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:42:42 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Tell you what: you name 'em and I might even put up the article. But I
>> >don't think you will.
>>
>> Holy fuck!!!!
>>
>> That was classic Moto!!!!
>>
>> ***cue the Twilight Zone music***
>
>All right, let me spell it out for you.
>
>You and Krusty have both insinuated that it doesn't exist. Phrases like
>"claim to have written", "put up or shut up", and suggesting that by my
>not letting you see it, "obvious questions" are raised, indicate this.
>
>This makes you look very stupid. Again.
Neil if you have something to say to Krusty you should say it to him.
Making multiple attributions and then addressing them all to me is
dishonest to the extreme. What it interesting is being dishonest
doesn't seem to bother you at all.
As for the article I have been consistent throughout. It is your
article. You can post it if you want. I really don't care either way.
I have said that several times. The fact you continue to return to the
topic is amusing and a little enlightening.
As for whether you wrote it or not, I have acknowledged you reached
the pinnacle of your chosen profession. You seemed to disagree with
that representation so I will polish it a bit.
You should be proud of achieving a level of mediocrity in your chosen
profession and doing so in almost total obscurity.
Is that better? Personally I thought my first kick at it was more
flattering. YMMV
The Older Gentleman
> Making multiple attributions and then addressing them all to me is
> dishonest to the extreme.
I didn't. Your inability to understand simple English trips you up
again.
Hand, hth, etc.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Making multiple attributions and then addressing them all to me is
>> dishonest to the extreme.
>
>I didn't. Your inability to understand simple English trips you up
>again.
>
>Hand, hth, etc.
Beg to differ Neil. But by clever snipping you removed the offending
language, again. Once again very dishonest.
Carry on your merry way. Your intent is clear in the words you type
and your lame attempts to hide behind language fails every time.
Deceit and misrepresentation integrated in your character. As it has
been said, a leopard can't change its spots and you cannot change your
character.
The Older Gentleman
> Beg to differ Neil. But by clever snipping you removed the offending
> language, again. Once again very dishonest.
<giggle> Oh dear, oh deary dear. You fuck u again.
Here it is, in its entirety:
STARTS
You and Krusty have both insinuated that it doesn't exist. Phrases like
"claim to have written", "put up or shut up", and suggesting that by my
not letting you see it, "obvious questions" are raised, indicate this.
ENDS
Both of you cited, your combined little catchphrases cited, and
*nothing* that attributes them all to you. That's why you were *both*
cited, see. Not hard to understand.
<Thinks>
Well, OK, hard for you.
You both thought you'd have a little fun. So you picked up on my
reference to a piece I'd written and demanded to see it. I knew
*exactly* what you were both trying to do and strung you along.
Yup, sure enough, you both reacted true to type.
How odd that it isn't on the web? you (singular, yes you) mused.
Erm, that's because the mag doesn't have an online presence....
How odd that despite being a famous journalist, you have a near-zero
presence on Google....
Erm, you don't know how to use Google.
You've made yourself (singular) look a complete prannet. Hun, drawn, and
quartered and now you've reverted to the old 'Dishonest! Dishonest!'
call. <VBG>
don (Calgary)
Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
None of this poorly constructed message, including all of the
misquotes, does anything to rehabilitate your tattered reputation.
There are so many errors and omissions in your quotes, it's not worth
my time making the corrections. If this is an example of your
journalistic integrity, I understand why your work is lost in
obscurity.
BrianNZ
<snip>
>
> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
>
Bwaaahahahaha.....look in the mirror!! Well, in this case I could hold
up a glass window pane, get you on one side, TOG on the other, noses
touching the glass and it would look like a mirror (apart from the
spittle drool would be running off both sides!). You and TOG are twins
living in different countries!!
Both of you love bitching about nothing and going on and on about who
said what ,when....trying to sort out deliberate 'mis-understandings'.
Two trolls making love on the interweb.......
<snip>
BrianNZ
Your not doing yourself any favours along the way!! The pair of you are
looking the same to me........scrolls of crap trying to 'score' some
sort of point along the way. I don't know which one has dragged the
other one down to their level, but you are both level pegging on the
points at the moment.....and it's not a high score!
don (Calgary)
Considering this comes from a guy who has to get himself impaired to
the legal limit of alcohol before going for a ride, I might have a
vision problem, but I just don't see myself getting too concerned over
your opinion.
By the way my sister is going to be visiting your corner of the world
this spring. Let me know the name and addy of the bar that refused to
serve you. I'd like to have them drop by and give the bartender my
kudos for exercising good judgement.
G'Day Mate!
BrianNZ
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:10:45 +1300, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bwaaahahahaha.....look in the mirror!! Well, in this case I could hold
>> up a glass window pane, get you on one side, TOG on the other, noses
>> touching the glass and it would look like a mirror (apart from the
>> spittle drool would be running off both sides!). You and TOG are twins
>> living in different countries!!
>>
>> Both of you love bitching about nothing and going on and on about who
>> said what ,when....trying to sort out deliberate 'mis-understandings'.
>>
>> Two trolls making love on the interweb.......
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Considering this comes from a guy who has to get himself impaired to
> the legal limit of alcohol before going for a ride, I might have a
> vision problem, but I just don't see myself getting too concerned over
> your opinion.
No need for concern, just a heads up for the pair of you that you are
looking like a pair of idiots.
And to correct your assumption of my drinking/riding habits....I go for
a ride and drink at the destination (usually a pub) while having a feed.
Usually a drink before the food arrives, one with the meal and maybe
another one if some mates turn up and we are chatting. Or were you
meaning I drink to the legal limit 'after' I've been for a ride, but
before the ride home?....feel free to move into nit-picking mode
anytime......
If thats illegal where you come from, I pity you. The reason we have
limits to the amount we can drink before riding/driving is because
excessive consumption makes it dangerous.
>
> By the way my sister is going to be visiting your corner of the world
> this spring. Let me know the name and addy of the bar that refused to
> serve you. I'd like to have them drop by and give the bartender my
> kudos for exercising good judgement.
The Whangamomona Hotel, Whangamomona. I look forward to her tourist
dollars being spent here in paradise.
>
> G'Day Mate!
Yep.
don (Calgary)
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:10:45 +1300, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bwaaahahahaha.....look in the mirror!! Well, in this case I could hold
>>> up a glass window pane, get you on one side, TOG on the other, noses
>>> touching the glass and it would look like a mirror (apart from the
>>> spittle drool would be running off both sides!). You and TOG are twins
>>> living in different countries!!
>>>
>>> Both of you love bitching about nothing and going on and on about who
>>> said what ,when....trying to sort out deliberate 'mis-understandings'.
>>>
>>> Two trolls making love on the interweb.......
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Considering this comes from a guy who has to get himself impaired to
>> the legal limit of alcohol before going for a ride, I might have a
>> vision problem, but I just don't see myself getting too concerned over
>> your opinion.
>
>
>No need for concern, just a heads up for the pair of you that you are
>looking like a pair of idiots.
This is Reeky. It would take not looking like an idiot to stand out.
>
>And to correct your assumption of my drinking/riding habits....I go for
>a ride and drink at the destination (usually a pub) while having a feed.
>Usually a drink before the food arrives, one with the meal and maybe
>another one if some mates turn up and we are chatting. Or were you
>meaning I drink to the legal limit 'after' I've been for a ride, but
>before the ride home?....feel free to move into nit-picking mode
>anytime......
My memory has a different take on it, but no big deal.
>
>If thats illegal where you come from, I pity you. The reason we have
>limits to the amount we can drink before riding/driving is because
>excessive consumption makes it dangerous.
When I was your age I thought pretty much like you do. Considering the
change in the way we view impaired driving today, I probably drove
drunker and more often than you do. It wasn't that big of a deal back
then. The old saying "I had to drive because I was too drunk to walk"
was more truth than fiction.
Fortunately I am a little smarter today than I was back then. While I
still drive or ride after a beer or two, I don't make a habit of it.
We now know even a single drink impairs your ability to drive and
makes you a higher risk on the road. Just because you are under the
legal limit doesn't mean you are not impaired.
>>
>> By the way my sister is going to be visiting your corner of the world
>> this spring. Let me know the name and addy of the bar that refused to
>> serve you. I'd like to have them drop by and give the bartender my
>> kudos for exercising good judgement.
>
>
>The Whangamomona Hotel, Whangamomona. I look forward to her tourist
>dollars being spent here in paradise.
>
They are looking forward to spending them there too.
>>
>> G'Day Mate!
>
>
>Yep.
I should have seen that one coming.
The Older Gentleman
> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
Nope. That wasn't even arguing. Just pointing out where you managed to
fuck up. I see you've abandoned the "You're being dishonest, attributing
Krusty's comments to me" line, though.
It's a start. Your remedial classes in English are working :-))
The Older Gentleman
> Your not doing yourself any favours along the way!! The pair of you are
> looking the same to me........scrolls of crap trying to 'score' some
> sort of point along the way. I don't know which one has dragged the
> other one down to their level, but you are both level pegging on the
> points at the moment.....and it's not a high score!
Oh, quite. But it's irresistible fun, ponting ouyt all his
miscomprehensions and misassumptions. and then watching him go off on
another tack when he realises, belatedly, he's wrond and has made
himself look a fool.
Anyway, I see he's after you now, so enjoy :-)
The Older Gentleman
> Let me know the name and addy of the bar that refused to
> serve you.
On past experience, you wouldn't be able to find it and would then say
it didn't exist. :-))
The Older Gentleman
> ouyt
> wrond
Bloody brand new glasses are useless at close range, Should have ordered
bifocals.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
>
>Nope. That wasn't even arguing. Just pointing out where you managed to
>fuck up. I see you've abandoned the "You're being dishonest, attributing
>Krusty's comments to me" line, though.
Actually there comes a point in all of our discussions where it is
apparent once you have sacrificed your honesty, character and dignity
there are no boundaries to the BS you choose to propagate and
perpetuate. You are no different than the many trolls that have
cruised through Reeky in the past. Life is too short to repeatedly
refute the lies you throw out. Rest assured though you will wear them
every time you post in this forum.
The Older Gentleman
Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in demanding to
see the article I wrote were spot on :-))
Do you still think it doesn't exist?
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:28:16 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neil, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, again.
>> >
>> >Nope. That wasn't even arguing. Just pointing out where you managed to
>> >fuck up. I see you've abandoned the "You're being dishonest, attributing
>> >Krusty's comments to me" line, though.
>>
>> Actually there comes a point in all of our discussions where it is
>> apparent once you have sacrificed your honesty, character and dignity
>> there are no boundaries to the BS you choose to propagate and
>> perpetuate. You are no different than the many trolls that have
>> cruised through Reeky in the past. Life is too short to repeatedly
>> refute the lies you throw out. Rest assured though you will wear them
>> every time you post in this forum.
>
>Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in demanding to
>see the article I wrote were spot on :-))
>
>Do you still think it doesn't exist?
Neil, it is clear from a swift reading of your comments, you
are a serial liar. You construct this extraordinary belief system and
subscribe to the view that if you repeat a lie often enough, you
convince people. Including yourself.
The Older Gentleman
> >Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in demanding to
> >see the article I wrote were spot on :-))
> >
> >Do you still think it doesn't exist?
>
> Neil, it is clear from a swift reading of your comments, you
> are a serial liar. You construct this extraordinary belief system and
> subscribe to the view that if you repeat a lie often enough, you
> convince people. Including yourself.
<G>
Well, I could now use this opportunity to display it, either electronic,
or scanned paper, or both, but that would make you look unbearably
ridiculous in this group.
Your loss of face would be massive. It really, really would.
But I've had a change of heart. I don't think it would be kind to do
that to you. So I won't.
You will appreciate this little bit of New Year charity one day. Have a
good end to your New Year holiday and ride safe.
One or two people might add their own comments here. Or might not.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in demanding to
>> >see the article I wrote were spot on :-))
>> >
>> >Do you still think it doesn't exist?
>>
>> Neil, it is clear from a swift reading of your comments, you
>> are a serial liar. You construct this extraordinary belief system and
>> subscribe to the view that if you repeat a lie often enough, you
>> convince people. Including yourself.
>
><G>
>
>Well, I could now use this opportunity to display it, either electronic,
>or scanned paper, or both, but that would make you look unbearably
>ridiculous in this group.
>
>Your loss of face would be massive. It really, really would.
>
>But I've had a change of heart. I don't think it would be kind to do
>that to you. So I won't.
>
>You will appreciate this little bit of New Year charity one day. Have a
>good end to your New Year holiday and ride safe.
>
>One or two people might add their own comments here. Or might not.
I really don't care if you post the article or not. I made a request
to read the article, very politely, and you refused. I am fine with
that. I don't agree with your reasons, but it is your article. This is
probably the fifth time I have explained this to you. Are you dense?
Silly question. Your actions provide the answer.
At no time did I ever demand to see it. That is just one more in a
very long line of the lies you continue to post. I defy you to provide
one quote of me demanding to see the article.
At no time did I ever say the article didn't exist. That is another in
a very long line of the lies you continue to post. I defy you to
provide one quote of me saying the article didn't exist..
The fact you can't post one single quote supporting your most recent
lines of bullshit makes you look unbearably ridiculous and
underscores the lack of character you display here on a daily basis.
I have noted the similarities between you and Moto, but Moto never
deliberately lied about anyone in this group. Your continued deception
is more in line with Bill Walker. If you were not around during those
days, despite the facts, the archival records and all reasonable
logic, Bill would continually post the same lies about several people
in this group. Here you are doing the exact same thing.
Enjoy the company you keep.
The Older Gentleman
> At no time did I ever demand to see it. That is just one more in a
> very long line of the lies you continue to post. I defy you to provide
> one quote of me demanding to see the article.
A demand can still be a request and vice versa. You're Canadian -
'demander' is precisely the same word for demand and ask, in French. You
asked to see it, and if you think the word 'demand' is too peremptory
and smacks of an order, well, that wasn't my intention.
"I would like to read this article."
"If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
article and post it. I would like to read it "
"If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
forum."
"I did want to read it."
I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
At this point, I repeat, I could make you look very, very silly and
cause you a lot of embarrassment, but I won't, because I think this
should end. And right now, if it ends, people will forget, in a while,
that this episode happened. That's probably best.
If, on the othr hand, I put the article up, at the end of this series of
tirades from you, people will not forget for a long time. And I think
it's best to leave them in suspense, so they don't know for certain one
way or the other.
Don't you?
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> At no time did I ever demand to see it. That is just one more in a
>> very long line of the lies you continue to post. I defy you to provide
>> one quote of me demanding to see the article.
>
>A demand can still be a request and vice versa. You're Canadian -
>'demander' is precisely the same word for demand and ask, in French.
I hesitate to point out the obvious but we were speaking English.
>You
>asked to see it, and if you think the word 'demand' is too peremptory
>and smacks of an order, well, that wasn't my intention.
Oh please don't start this fucking bullshit again. We went through it
with your warped and insincere definition of "Troops" and "Enlist"
Here is what Webster provides as the definition of demand:
Main Entry: 1de�mand
Pronunciation: \di-?mand, -?m�nd, d?-\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a
demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>
>
>"I would like to read this article."
>
>"If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
>article and post it. I would like to read it "
>
>"If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
>forum."
>
>"I did want to read it."
You are an idiot. Not one of those quotes even comes close to me
"demanding" anything.
They were all polite requests to do nothing more than most of the
other members of this group do all the time.
And what about the quote(s) where I said the article doesn't exist?
Cough those up or wear the mantle of a liar. Now there is something
people will not forget for a long time.
>
>I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
>You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
>doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
Bullshit! My requests to read the article were polite and sincere.
Show me where I said the article doesn't exist. You can't because I
didn't. You are so full of shit.
>
>At this point, I repeat, I could make you look very, very silly and
>cause you a lot of embarrassment, but I won't, because I think this
>should end. And right now, if it ends, people will forget, in a while,
>that this episode happened. That's probably best.
>
>If, on the othr hand, I put the article up, at the end of this series of
>tirades from you, people will not forget for a long time.
Neil, post the article or don't post the article. I have lost track of
how many times I have told you I don't care one way or the other. Yes
I would like to read it, but even the classics are not worth all of
this bullshit dealing with you.
>And I think
>it's best to leave them in suspense, so they don't know for certain one
>way or the other.
>
>Don't you?
Neil we share ride reports, technical and repair experiences and
photographs of our modest exploits all the time in this forum.
From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
share our riding experiences. To RGD's chronicles of his many
journeys, to Tim's racing experiences, and to all other excellent
tales from the side of the road that have been posted here over the
years, we have openly shared and documented our experiences, without
expecting or requesting compensation or some other form of
acknowledgement. We do so willingly in the spirit of what riders
everywhere share. Camaraderie! Your current tantrum is breaking new
Reeky ground.
Yes sometimes what we share is used as fodder for assholes like you,
but we continue in spite of what the ankle biters will do.
In this instance, I very politely requested the opportunity to read a
simple article you said you wrote and the result is a shitstorm of
lies and typical Murray bullshit. Un Fucking Believable!
Your acting like a child refusing to share his toys with the other
kids. If you think this looks good on you, you are far more delusional
than even I imagined.
The Older Gentleman
> >I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
> >You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
> >doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
>
> Bullshit! My requests to read the article were polite and sincere.
> Show me where I said the article doesn't exist. You can't because I
> didn't.
Don, I have never posted that you said it doesn't exist.
For the third time of asking in this thread: let's drop it, shall we? I
think you are becoming increasingly irrational, and it's the best thing
for both of us, and reeky.
Mark Olson
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>> I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
>>> You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
>>> doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
>> Bullshit! My requests to read the article were polite and sincere.
>> Show me where I said the article doesn't exist. You can't because I
>> didn't.
<takes deep breath>
Right here, Don:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.motorcycles/msg/26767dcc6b8cd410
=====================================================================
Bottom line, I asked you to post the article you claimed to write for
Bike Magazine. You refused. You have your reasons for refusing and
while I don't agree they are valid, it is your choice whether to post
the article or not.
=====================================================================
The way I read it, when you said "claimed to write", the implication was
crystal clear. You implied that TOG didn't actually write it. Why would
I think that's what you meant? Easy. You've repeatedly called TOG
a liar. Given that, using "claimed to write" instead of simply saying
"wrote" is unambiguous. Do I have it wrong?
I also think you know this, but I'm going to explicitly say it. TOG makes
his living working for a trade paper on a completely different subject,
his motorcycle stuff is a sideline. FWIW, I was emailed a copy of a
relatively recent article he wrote for Bike magazine from someone on UKRM
who scanned it (it was "ogden", not TOG, obviously since he doesn't own
the copyright after selling it to Bike).
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.motorcycles/msg/a621b625e6642754
I've tried to stay out of your feud with TOG. You're a friend. I respect
you. I'm jumping in with my size 13s now because I think you've both
taken the personal angle much too far for otherwise decent people.
Both of you have said some very inflammatory things to each other.
Now it's time for *both* of you to show a little sense and to stop making
yourselves look like asses. No one is winning an argument when it's
obvious that the exchange has degenerated into 99.9% personal attacks.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
>>>> You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
>>>> doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
>>> Bullshit! My requests to read the article were polite and sincere.
>>> Show me where I said the article doesn't exist. You can't because I
>>> didn't.
>
><takes deep breath>
>
>Right here, Don:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.motorcycles/msg/26767dcc6b8cd410
>=====================================================================
>Bottom line, I asked you to post the article you claimed to write for
>Bike Magazine. You refused. You have your reasons for refusing and
>while I don't agree they are valid, it is your choice whether to post
>the article or not.
>=====================================================================
>
>The way I read it, when you said "claimed to write", the implication was
>crystal clear. You implied that TOG didn't actually write it. Why would
>I think that's what you meant? Easy. You've repeatedly called TOG
>a liar. Given that, using "claimed to write" instead of simply saying
>"wrote" is unambiguous. Do I have it wrong?
Well yes you do.
Mark I respect your opinion and appreciate your input. That said I
maintain I did not say the article did not exist. Subject to your
interpretation or speculation you might read "claimed" as suggesting
that but it was not a clear definitive statement, nor was it what I
intended. Further in all of my earlier and subsequent posts I
acknowledged he wrote the article. I think my intent was quite clear.
Here are my original requests to read the article:
>>"I would like to read this article."
>>
>>"If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
>>article and post it. I would like to read it "
>>
>>"If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
>>forum."
>>
>>"I did want to read it."
Polite, respectful with no suggestion he did not write it. Short of
giving him a verbal blow job I don't know how much nicer I could have
been.
I have acknowledged Neil is a writer. I even commended him for
reaching the pinnacle of his chosen profession.
As for him being a liar, well, he is. Since November he has displayed
a proven, consistent record of misrepresentation and deception. It
continues in this thread. I am just calling a spade a spade.
>
>I also think you know this, but I'm going to explicitly say it. TOG makes
>his living working for a trade paper on a completely different subject,
>his motorcycle stuff is a sideline. FWIW, I was emailed a copy of a
>relatively recent article he wrote for Bike magazine from someone on UKRM
>who scanned it (it was "ogden", not TOG, obviously since he doesn't own
>the copyright after selling it to Bike).
I have acknowledged he is a writer, one well hidden to be sure, but a
writer none the less. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
We have all achieved a certain amount of success in our chosen
professions. Here is a pat on the back to everyone, but our personal
professional achievements are irrelevant to this conversation.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.motorcycles/msg/a621b625e6642754
>
>I've tried to stay out of your feud with TOG. You're a friend. I respect
>you. I'm jumping in with my size 13s now because I think you've both
>taken the personal angle much too far for otherwise decent people.
>
>Both of you have said some very inflammatory things to each other.
>Now it's time for *both* of you to show a little sense and to stop making
>yourselves look like asses. No one is winning an argument when it's
>obvious that the exchange has degenerated into 99.9% personal attacks.
Remember this particular pissing contest started with my poking a
little fun at Neil. He reacted with this shitstorm.
As I noted in an earlier post:
Fuck'em if they can't take a joke"
Please note that was directed to neil, not to you. I doubt very much
if I made a joke about engineers, and trust me I have a hundred of
them ;-) [1], you would react the same way.
[1] I work with engineering consultants and associates every day.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >I held out a little olive branch there, and I'm holding it out again.
>> >You have expressed constant scepticism and you have implied a belief it
>> >doesn't exist - don't argue, now, you have.
>>
>> Bullshit! My requests to read the article were polite and sincere.
>> Show me where I said the article doesn't exist. You can't because I
>> didn't.
>
>Don, I have never posted that you said it doesn't exist.
You have implied it several times throughout this thread. Almost every
time I have responded acknowledging you wrote the article, but you
have ignored it every time.
>
>For the third time of asking in this thread: let's drop it, shall we?
More deception. Third Time? Bullshit!
>I
>think you are becoming increasingly irrational,
Once again I made a simple joke. Yes, one that poked fun at you, but
given some of the stuff you have posted, you are a target rich
environment. This thread had nothing to do with your profession or the
article until you introduced it. You could have avoided all of this
by not bringing the topic up. Don't be blaming me because you shit the
bed.
>and it's the best thing
>for both of us, and reeky.
Do what you think is best for you Neil. I doubt very much you want to
back away from this discussion, in the best interests of Reeky.
Mark Olson
OK. I'll take you at your word that you have always acknowledged
that TOG wrote the article. I'll have to stand by what I said, that
it seemed, and I'm sure by TOG's reaction, that it seemed to him also,
that you wrote "claimed to write" rather than "wrote" as a deliberate
choice of words in order to cast doubt on his veracity. Whether that
was the case or not, I have to say it was an unfortunate choice of
words because it did not convey the meaning that you *claim* to have
intended.
>
> Here are my original requests to read the article:
>
>>> "I would like to read this article."
>>>
>>> "If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
>>> article and post it. I would like to read it "
>>>
>>> "If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
>>> forum."
>>>
>>> "I did want to read it."
>
> Polite, respectful with no suggestion he did not write it. Short of
> giving him a verbal blow job I don't know how much nicer I could have
> been.
Of course none of those requests were the smoking gun, so to speak. It
was the specific phrase "claimed to write", as I said earlier. TOG is
not saying those requests were a denial of his writing the article,
either, as you well know.
> Remember this particular pissing contest started with my poking a
> little fun at Neil. He reacted with this shitstorm.
As me and everyone else here knows by now, your ongoing feud started
with the Canadian troops thread. TOG hit a hot button with you, something
very personal and sacred. That is an issue I also don't care to get into.
But ever since then you and he have been at each other's throats and you
have brought it up time and again as justification for calling TOG a liar.
It's time to let that go and get on with your lives.
I strongly suspect I am the only person on here who knows you who is dumb
enough to come right out and say this stuff in public. Please, let it go.
The Older Gentleman
> Do what you think is best for you Neil. I doubt very much you want to
> back away from this discussion, in the best interests of Reeky.
>
Actually, I am and I do and I have done.
I genuinely think you have some mental issues and there just isn't any
point in sparring with someone like that, so there we go.
It would be nice to think that you'll abandon your promise to keep on
'jabbing' in any thread you choose.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
You are welcome to read through the thread and the other one where
this topic was discussed, and you will see I have on a few occasions
acknowledged he wrote the article and recognized his chosen
profession.
Think what you will about my demeanor on this forum, but I always
stand by my word and do not deliberately misrepresent what I have or
have not said. Ask Neil if he can say the same.
>I'll have to stand by what I said, that
>it seemed, and I'm sure by TOG's reaction, that it seemed to him also,
>that you wrote "claimed to write" rather than "wrote" as a deliberate
>choice of words in order to cast doubt on his veracity. Whether that
>was the case or not, I have to say it was an unfortunate choice of
>words because it did not convey the meaning that you *claim* to have
>intended.
Well he did claim to write the article. That is factual. I stated he
claimed to write the article. That is also factual. If Neil's barrage
that followed stemmed from that statement of fact, then he
overreacted. Personally I think he saw an opportunity to continue
argument, an argument that had already died in another thread, and as
is his nature, grabbed it with gusto.
Of course, in the same breath he also stated I "demanded" he post the
article in this forum. I could ask you if you thought that was a
factual comment. I won't, because unlike Neil, I only speak for
myself. I do not pretend to represent others and I do not troll for
comments from the rest of this forum.
>
>>
>> Here are my original requests to read the article:
>>
>>>> "I would like to read this article."
>>>>
>>>> "If you have the time and the technology why not scan a copy of the
>>>> article and post it. I would like to read it "
>>>>
>>>> "If you wouldn't mind, take a minute and copy and paste it to this
>>>> forum."
>>>>
>>>> "I did want to read it."
>>
>> Polite, respectful with no suggestion he did not write it. Short of
>> giving him a verbal blow job I don't know how much nicer I could have
>> been.
>
>Of course none of those requests were the smoking gun, so to speak. It
>was the specific phrase "claimed to write", as I said earlier. TOG is
>not saying those requests were a denial of his writing the article,
>either, as you well know.
He did make the claim I demanded he post the article here. Considering
my requests noted above, I don't know how to characterize his
statement I "demanded", any other way than it is a lie. I can't soften
that language Mark. It is what it is and Neil is what he is.
>
>> Remember this particular pissing contest started with my poking a
>> little fun at Neil. He reacted with this shitstorm.
>
>As me and everyone else here knows by now, your ongoing feud started
>with the Canadian troops thread. TOG hit a hot button with you, something
>very personal and sacred. That is an issue I also don't care to get into.
>But ever since then you and he have been at each other's throats and you
>have brought it up time and again as justification for calling TOG a liar.
>It's time to let that go and get on with your lives.
Neil made a very unfair and totally incorrect statement about Canada's
involvement in the second world war. Was it a deliberate lie or just
an example of his ignorance on the topic? If he immediately offered a
correction and an apology, I could accept he was just poorly informed
or uneducated on the topic. But he didn't. In fact he carried on for
weeks trying to convince people he spoke the truth. He even pretended
he didn't understand the meaning of a couple of commonly used words,
in an attempt to justify the statement. All deceptive practices. One
of which he repeated in this thread.
The episode garnished my impression of Neil and galvanized his lack of
character. A lack of character that has been demonstrated repeatedly
since.
While I am sure Neil would like to have everyone forget his ignorance
or deliberate deception, and I am sure you are tired of hearing about
it, the statement is on his record. He volunteered it. I didn't
extract it from him. And it represents exactly who and what he is.
Sorry Mark, but as long as he is dogging me I will not let him forget.
>
>I strongly suspect I am the only person on here who knows you who is dumb
>enough to come right out and say this stuff in public. Please, let it go.
>
As I said or at least implied before I appreciate and respect your
opinion. While it would have been nice if your comments were a little
more balanced or at least recognized this thread would have died a
long time ago had Neil not resurrected the discussion on the article
and fabricated and attributed statements to me I did not make. That
said you and I have enjoyed a beer together and shared a few miles of
asphalt together, on a couple of occasions, and I consider you a
friend.
You are also one of the contributors of quality information and
entertainment to this forum. Next time someone asked a question
related to your professional area of expertise, please do not respond
by letting them know you provide related information for a living and
ask them to pay for it.
I don't care if you consider Neil a friend or not. That is your
choice, but please do not ask me to ignore Neil's consistent
fabrications and misrepresentations about me. It is not going to
happen.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Do what you think is best for you Neil. I doubt very much you want to
>> back away from this discussion, in the best interests of Reeky.
>>
>
>Actually, I am and I do and I have done.
>
>I genuinely think you have some mental issues and there just isn't any
>point in sparring with someone like that, so there we go.
And this comment demonstrates how you have moved on. ROTFLMAO
Considering your proven track record for deception and
misrepresentation, statements like that one prove you are consistent,
if nothing else.
>
>It would be nice to think that you'll abandon your promise to keep on
>'jabbing' in any thread you choose.
Just a reminder, it was you who resurrected the argument about the
article, an argument that had died in another thread, not me. I was
done with it, but you chose to revive it. Don't be whining and crying
about it after you get your knuckles wrapped. Suck it up Princess.
As for my jabbing at you, well stop acting like an asshole and I will
leave you alone. It's really quite simple.
The Older Gentleman
BrianNZ
You are a generous man, taking him at his word when it is obvious that
playing on words is his 'thing'.
When I read the 'claimed to write' phrase it was obvious it was just
another baited hook and clearly meant that he had only 'claimed' to have
written the article, rather than actually writing it. His intent was
quite clear.........
As for it being 'the bottom line', well, it was far from that! (Just see
how many other 'lines' have followed! :) ) The bottom line is they both
need each other to bitch at and both need the last word.
don (Calgary)
>
>As for it being 'the bottom line', well, it was far from that! (Just see
>how many other 'lines' have followed! :) ) The bottom line is they both
>need each other to bitch at and both need the last word.
I always like it when Neil announces his last word.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>This is my last word on this subject.
Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in this
thread were spot on.
BrianNZ
See!!
don (Calgary)
Hey I didn't make any announcements I was done. Short of more
provocation, the thread can die here though.
Bob Mann
news:yuqdnYnZBIcK66LW...@posted.visi:
> I strongly suspect I am the only person on here who knows you who is
> dumb enough to come right out and say this stuff in public.
>
Not quite.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Road Glidin' Don
> Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote innews:yuqdnYnZBIcK66LW...@posted.visi:
>
> > I strongly suspect I am the only person on here who knows you who is
> > dumb enough to come right out and say this stuff in public.
>
> Not quite.
Ditto.
BrianNZ
I take it then , that my assessment of of your motives in this thread
were spot on. :)
Robert Bolton
wrote:
....
>Both of you have said some very inflammatory things to each other.
>Now it's time for *both* of you to show a little sense and to stop making
>yourselves look like asses. No one is winning an argument when it's
>obvious that the exchange has degenerated into 99.9% personal attacks.
I can agree with the above.
Robert
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
> of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
> share our riding experiences.
Just out of curiosity - and this does sound interesting - what makes you
think I don't organise something similar?
NART does sound good. I dareay I'll be riding in the US again soon,
mind.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
> > of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
> > share our riding experiences.
>
> Just out of curiosity - and this does sound interesting - what makes you
> think I don't organise something similar?
>
> NART does sound good. I dareay I'll be riding in the US again soon,
> mind.
>
Wait till summer swing by Glacier park and I'll show you why GTTSR and
the bits to connect the two ends would make a hellaciously scary fun
road course. 8^) Mind you it's got cheese graters, drop offs into
scary rocks/water/marsh/mountains streams(nice trout in those I'm
told) 8^) Worst part is you keep looking up from the road...damned
scenery and wild life.
The Older Gentleman
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Ditto, too. I said essentially the same thing weeks ago. I like and
respect and have ridden with Don, and look forward to riding with him
again, hopefully in 2010. I like and respect and enjoy writing to
and hearing from Neil, and hope someday to meet him, whether in
England or here in the States.
There are folks here with whom I have had violently worded
disagreements over the years, but in time, continued communication has
permitted those rifts to be healed and some I hope to meet with and
ride with in the future. Maybe it's been so long that others have
forgotten, but I had my own verbal battles royale with both Keith and
RGD when first we encountered one another on reeky.
I think the original falling out between the two was deeply
unfortunate, but these things happen. The continued sniping back and
forth is worse, and diminishes both in that I have pretty much stopped
looking at any posts from either contributor if it is immediately
preceded or followed by a post from the other.
Out of consideration for your many friends in the group, one or both
of you might consider a unilateral ceasefire, and give both of you
time to cool off.
Just a thought, not a sermon!
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
>> of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
>> share our riding experiences.
>
>
>NART does sound good. I dareay I'll be riding in the US again soon,
>mind.
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
http://mikeoneill.com/reeky/leg1.html
http://www.actualriders.ca/nartshirts.htm
Mark Olson
Mark Olson
Going To The Sun Road
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
My bad for missing yours Mark. I did a quick Google and grabbed a few
I thought were still active.
I usually look for Sunny's PK Riders NART page, but her whole site is
down. I haven't seen here post here or over in tx.moto for quite a
while.
I lost all of her contact info in my last computer crash. If anyone
here has an active email for her please pass it along to me.
The Older Gentleman
looks fun. Mind you, I remember riding through some deserted national
park in NM, years ago. Fabulous road, could see for miles, lovely
surface, wonderful bends, and something silly like a 40mph speed limit.
Ignored it.
The Older Gentleman
Have I got this right? You sign T-shirts and pass them on?
(Been looking at your home page, btw - man, that Yamaha 1300 is even
uglier than I remembered)
Mark Olson
> My bad for missing yours Mark. I did a quick Google and grabbed a few
> I thought were still active.
No problem.
> I usually look for Sunny's PK Riders NART page, but her whole site is
> down. I haven't seen here post here or over in tx.moto for quite a
> while.
>
> I lost all of her contact info in my last computer crash. If anyone
> here has an active email for her please pass it along to me.
You could try sending her a PM on AR.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
I resigned from AR Mark and had my account deactivated. If you
wouldn't mind could I ask you to PM her for me.
Thanks
BrianNZ
> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:18:45 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> This is my last word on this subject.
>>> Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in this
>>> thread were spot on.
>> See!!
>
> <Puzzled>
>
> See what?
>
>
See you trying to get the last word!! :)
BrianNZ
Sounds perfect to me...nothing like 'incentives' to keep you focused on
the road. I've watched the guy in front of me go straight ahead at a
corner and take out the big sign with the arrows on it, that show it's a
tight turn.......he was distracted by the colour of the trees in autumn.....
BrianNZ
<clapping from the balcony>
Robert Bolton
wrote:
While I wasn't in on the ride, I enjoyed following the run. Leg1
brings back fond memories of gasoline at only$1.75/gal US.
Those were the days,
Robert
The Older Gentleman
Um, nope, you've lost me here, but then I've had a large curry tiffin
and a few beers and I'm not that quick on the uptake right now.
BrianNZ
> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:18:45 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>>>>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is my last word on this subject.
>>>>> Heh. I take it, then, that my assessment of your motives in this
>>>>> thread were spot on.
>>>> See!!
>>> <Puzzled>
>>>
>>> See what?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> See you trying to get the last word!! :)
>
> Um, nope, you've lost me here, but then I've had a large curry tiffin
> and a few beers and I'm not that quick on the uptake right now.
>
>
In another part of the thread I was mocking the pair of you about how
you both had to have the last word. You had had you 'last word' and Don
had to come in and have the last,last word. That was when I said
'See!!'.....as in 'See, you do have to have the last word'
Any reply to this will be greeted with a 'See' as well...... :)
Mark Olson
> Have I got this right? You sign T-shirts and pass them on?
That's the gist of it. It was Don's idea, but a whole lot of people
stepped up to the plate to make sure it completed its planned circuit,
some of them riding /stupid/ distances in the process. I think one of
the shirts is sitting at Jack and Lori Hunt's campground in Tellico
Plains TN. (shameless plug opportunity taken)
Top of the range as campgrounds go, we stayed in one of the immaculate
little cabins (me, my wife and son) last summer, and caught the tail end
of a NART reunion. Among the finest roads in the USA.
> (Been looking at your home page, btw - man, that Yamaha 1300 is even
> uglier than I remembered)
I'm fond of saying that I spend little time looking at my bike while I'm
riding it. It's a good thing to remember when bike shopping. It isn't
the world's best looking bike. but I love the Black Cherry color, no
other FJR beside the '07 non-AE model got it.
Road Glidin' Don
Heh, heh. You've had verbal battles royale with me in the past? You
must not have done a very good job, Tim, as they don't stick in my
memory.
But you're right about what you say. These things happen. And
they'll happen again.
To be perfectly honest, I'm still mystified and perplexed at what
originally bugged Don about Neil so much. Must be a conflict of
styles or the way one person perceives written words, as opposed to
the way another sees them. As I recall, the sniping was started by
Don, before the controversial statement Neil made regarding the
Canadian contribution to the WWII (and I also suspect Neil might have
interjected it, just prod Don a little). But, for the most part, I
was just reading and thinking, "What the fuck? Don, this isn't like
you." (sorry Don, but that's how it appeared to me)
Neil has seemed (to me, anyway) fairly reserved and willing to seek a
resolution during the process, so maybe he's a little disappointed no
one has spoken in his defense perhaps. But he's a big boy and has
been around the track a few times, as others here have. It's been the
same situation with me and Twibil on occasion too, when someone else
doesn't have a personal beef with either party.
My take on it is that sometimes, you just have to trust (even though
no one is speaking up in your defense) that the regulars here have a
pretty good sense of what's right and wrong, and they will not buy
into unfair tactics and complete nonsense that's said about you.
In fact, it is that silence that is usually the tip-off. You can
actually take heart from it, when you're in that situation. If it's
just one person saying crap about you, it doesn't mean much because,
like this case, it's usually due to one person getting a silly notion
into his head about the other. It's hard to shake that from a person
once it sets in because everthing you write will be coloured by that
lens from that point on.
So, like you say, when you think both of them are commendable, stand-
up types, it's pretty awkward to wade into the middle. I do think
that all bets should be off once someone starts to really distort and
demonize another's reputation as a human being for no reason. But it
wasn't Walker-level yet, right? At least we're not burdened with the
likes of liars of their proporation anymore. ;)
don (Calgary)
<robertbo...@gci.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:52:45 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:52:01 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>>Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>>>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
>>>> of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
>>>> share our riding experiences.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>NART does sound good. I dareay I'll be riding in the US again soon,
>>>mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
>>http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
>>http://mikeoneill.com/reeky/leg1.html
>>http://www.actualriders.ca/nartshirts.htm
>
>While I wasn't in on the ride, I enjoyed following the run.
We tried to find a way to get the shirts up to Alaska. It would have
been up to me to ride them there, but I just didn't have the holiday
time to devote to the run.
We missed a couple of Reeky regulars in the US Mid West too. We just
couldn't find a way to connect all of those dots.
It was fun following the progress of the shirts and checking out all
the ride reports. Of course meeting the likes of Bob, Mark, Pooder and
Keith was my personal highlight.
The Older Gentleman
> (and I also suspect Neil might have
> interjected it, just prod Don a little)
Guilty as charged :-)
The Older Gentleman
Ah, but we're way off topic now so the last word was had some time back
:-)
Mark Olson
> It was fun following the progress of the shirts and checking out all
> the ride reports. Of course meeting the likes of Bob, Mark, Pooder and
> Keith was my personal highlight.
You poor bugger.
BrianNZ
Are you saying keith is 'real'!! :)
Road Glidin' Don
> don (Calgary) wrote:
> > Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >>> From The North American Reeky Tour, where close to one hundred members
> >>> of this forum reached out across North America and beyond to meet and
> >>> share our riding experiences.
>
> >> NART does sound good. I dareay I'll be riding in the US again soon,
> >> mind.
> >http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
> >http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
> >http://mikeoneill.com/reeky/leg1.html
> >http://www.actualriders.ca/nartshirts.htm
>
> http://olsonm.dsl.visi.com/~olsonm/hhbs/NART/
<shaking head>
It's almost like sign of the end times; Harleys and metrics at peace
and riding in unison...
Road Glidin' Don
Gentleman) wrote:> > interjected it, just to prod Don a little)
>
> Guilty as charged :-)
I KNEW it!!! <g>
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>That's the gist of it. It was Don's idea, but a whole lot of people
>stepped up to the plate to make sure it completed its planned circuit,
>some of them riding /stupid/ distances in the process. I think one of
>the shirts is sitting at Jack and Lori Hunt's campground in Tellico
>Plains TN. (shameless plug opportunity taken)
>
>http://huntslodge.com/
I believe Al Brennan was the mileage King of the Tour and after a
quick look his NART report is still active. Even more surprising it is
on my old site. CRS <g>
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/NART%20Trip%20Report%20NW.pdf
don (Calgary)
<d.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>To be perfectly honest, I'm still mystified and perplexed at what
>originally bugged Don about Neil so much. Must be a conflict of
>styles or the way one person perceives written words, as opposed to
>the way another sees them. As I recall, the sniping was started by
>Don, before the controversial statement Neil made regarding the
>Canadian contribution to the WWII (and I also suspect Neil might have
>interjected it, just prod Don a little).
He can poke at me all he wants, but to slam hundreds of thousands of
Canadian troops, to take a cheap shot at me, was unforgivable, in my
mind. Still is.
>But, for the most part, I
>was just reading and thinking, "What the fuck? Don, this isn't like
>you." (sorry Don, but that's how it appeared to me)
No worries Don, but Neil's intent was quite clear to me, Further it
was poorly placed and timed.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
Ah, the sacrifices we make.
don (Calgary)
What I found interesting was that the Reekyites I met [1] on the Tour
were pretty much the same personalities I knew from this forum.
I am not sure if that made sense. I had a certain image of who these
guys were, based on these text exchanges. After meeting them in
person, my initial image or impression of who they were, was not
changed at all.
By the way that is a compliment.
And yes Keith is real and every bit the character we have grown to
know in Reeky.
[1] This was the first time I had met them.
BrianNZ
Thats good....I've never thought of putting faces to names....RGD and
.pjm are the only ones I've seen pics of and they looked like they
'sound'. I just assume everyone is old, fat and bald..... :)
don (Calgary)
Well there are links in this thread that will introduce you to many of
the regulars still hanging around here.
And I am not bald. ;-)
Mark Olson
> Thats good....I've never thought of putting faces to names....RGD and
> .pjm are the only ones I've seen pics of and they looked like they
> 'sound'. I just assume everyone is old, fat and bald..... :)
Hey! Some of us aren't bald.
Road Glidin' Don
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:11:30 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don"
>
> >To be perfectly honest, I'm still mystified and perplexed at what
> >originally bugged Don about Neil so much. Must be a conflict of
> >styles or the way one person perceives written words, as opposed to
> >the way another sees them. As I recall, the sniping was started by
> >Don, before the controversial statement Neil made regarding the
> >Canadian contribution to the WWII (and I also suspect Neil might have
> >interjected it, just prod Don a little).
>
> He can poke at me all he wants, but to slam hundreds of thousands of
> Canadian troops, to take a cheap shot at me, was unforgivable, in my
> mind. Still is.
Well, I don't think it really went so far as to slam the troops and
their bravery or sacrifice...
Plus, if people are already inclined to nit-pick, it's easy to do and
it's probably also partly a function of where you're sitting. The
Poles might have grounds to be somewhat disappointed they weren't
defended earlier. The French felt the same. One could criticize the
Americans for their much later start and so on. But, in the end, I
don't doubt the real gratitude felt that action was taken; and taken
at great cost.
Btw, given our current political psyche - as demonstrated recently
over the loss of 4 soldiers recently in Afghanistan - can you imagine
us EVER undertaking such a mission with high losses like that - even
in the case of a country like Great Britain - ever again? No way,
huh?
> >But, for the most part, I
> >was just reading and thinking, "What the fuck? Don, this isn't like
> >you." (sorry Don, but that's how it appeared to me)
>
> No worries Don, but Neil's intent was quite clear to me, Further it
> was poorly placed and timed.
Understood. We all have our soft spots that people, looking for a
place to inflict injury, can target. Goodness knows I have mine
too! ;)
don (Calgary)
<d.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Btw, given our current political psyche - as demonstrated recently
>over the loss of 4 soldiers recently in Afghanistan -
I would add to that list Michelle Lang, a young journalist for the
Calgary Herald.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Editorial+miss+Michelle/2395091/story.html
She was killed in the same incident. Very sad.
>can you imagine
>us EVER undertaking such a mission with high losses like that - even
>in the case of a country like Great Britain - ever again? No way,
>huh?
Well with today's technology the ground soldier will play a much
smaller role, if any, in the next world war. In fact the war will
probably be over before brave Canadian soldiers will have the
opportunity to enlist.
I also doubt Canadians would be so quick to enlist in our armed
forces, to be shipped overseas to defend Britain. Part of that would
be the lack of appreciation or recognition demonstrated world wide to
Canada's contributions over the years. Part of it would be Canada is
no longer tied as closely to the Commonwealth or Great Britain
anymore.
My sense is we would need to see our land in danger of being occupied
before we would send hundreds of thousands of Canadian troops
overseas.
>
>> >But, for the most part, I
>> >was just reading and thinking, "What the fuck? �Don, this isn't like
>> >you." (sorry Don, but that's how it appeared to me)
>>
>> No worries Don, but Neil's intent was quite clear to me, Further it
>> was poorly placed and timed.
>
>Understood. We all have our soft spots that people, looking for a
>place to inflict injury, can target. Goodness knows I have mine
>too! ;)
>
Here is an excerpt from my Mom's eulogy:
"When dad joined the Air Force during the war, he wrote to
mom about the many brave women who had also joined, and
inferred that mom didn't have the grit to sign up herself. It
seems to me that dad mustn't have known his wife very well
because of course she joined, and I believe those years were
'a time to remember', as they were for so many vets."
Love ya Mom.
The entire eulogy can be read here:
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/mom.htm
Like most veterans, my Mom and Dad had the grit to sign up and travel
to foreign lands, to defend people they did not know, and to fight a
common enemy. To have some blowhard from the very land my Mom and Dad
were defending, broadcast to Reeky, and Lord knows who else, Canada
refused to send troops to Europe during those years was like waving a
red flag in front of a bull.
I recognize Neil went on to praise our soldiers, but not recognizing
they were enlisted troops in the Canadian armed forces was just plain
wrong.
I will never apologize for defending the bravery and heritage of those
people from the ignorance of others.
S'mee
HEY! HEY NOW! I was sypmathetic to your virago shedding parts on the
way down wasn't I? Didn't I grouse with you about the kid on his newer
wing out running/powering both of us? huh? huh? Heck...I was actually
embarassed becuase I thought I was late!