Is Retro all it's cracked up to be?

[legrandefromage]

its a stupid argument to start in the first place. Why did you do it? Its not the ******* bike its the bloody rider.

I rattled round today on a 10 year old Kona - it was fine, it was muddy, the disk brake helped alot.

I could of rattled around on an 18 year old Gary Fisher, it would have been perfect on a dry summer day but its winter and muddy, it would have been the wrong bike.

I could have rattled round on an 18 year old GT, but its mostly NOS and the brakes dont work as they havent been bedded in yet.

I could have gone out on a £299 Carrera today, had just as much fun but it was retrobike meet and I would have been poked with a stick until I went away....

I know I contradict myself but if it had been a dry summers day today, I could have done the route on any of my old retrobikes.


BTW, while I was out today, I passed lots of 'moderns' having mechanicals...

 

[rosstheboss]

Next time there's a debate on this topic, I recommend the following:

How to win an argument

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

* Drink Liquor.

Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot entralls your date. But if you drink several large shots of Jack Daniels, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

* Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 2008 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 2009. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."

* Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:

Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say:

"Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."

Only a fool would challenge that statement.

* Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:

You say - As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponents says - Lincoln died in 1865.
You say - You're begging the question.

OR

You say - Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponents says - Liberia is in Africa.
You say - You're being defensive.

* Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

a friend of mine would just yell "I DONT WANT TO KNOW" repeatedly until the person would just give up...hilarious viewing from a bystander perspective...per sa..

Genius!

Also, another way of not necessarily winning the argument but winnin the moral victory is to stand there, arms crossed and nodding extravagently, saying in a slightly mocking tone "Yup, absolutely, you're absolutely right, yup" at EVERYTHING they say.... It should be noted this is often considered taking the p1ss and can result in violence...

 

[gibbleking]

Genius!

Also, another way of not necessarily winning the argument but winnin the moral victory is to stand there, arms crossed and nodding extravagently, saying in a slightly mocking tone "Yup, absolutely, you're absolutely right, yup" at EVERYTHING they say.... It should be noted this is often considered taking the p1ss and can result in violence...
_________________
07 Mountain Cycle Rumble
98 Stumpy M2
73 Raleigh Chopper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Gallery




this is known as stage 2 .....even funnier..

 

[rosstheboss]

Whats stage three?

Two options

1) Shout "BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" In their face and walk off

or

2) Declare "You're getting boring now" and stare at them

I have seen both done and both were very funny!

 

[SF Klein]

Whats stage three?

Two options

1) Shout "BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" In their face and walk off

or

2) Declare "You're getting boring now" and stare at them

I have seen both done and both were very funny!

I have a variation on your second one:

"I just realized...you're boring and I have 2 legs."

 

[legrandefromage]

I dont know anyone to get invited to parties in the first place. says alot about me dont it!

 

[gibbleking]

whenever im at a party i spend it in the kitchen..(retro80s gag)...

 

[Neil G]

its a stupid argument to start in the first place. Why did you do it? Its not the **** bike its the bloody rider.

I rattled round today on a 10 year old Kona - it was fine, it was muddy, the disk brake helped alot.

I could of rattled around on an 18 year old Gary Fisher, it would have been perfect on a dry summer day but its winter and muddy, it would have been the wrong bike.

I could have rattled round on an 18 year old GT, but its mostly NOS and the brakes dont work as they havent been bedded in yet.

I could have gone out on a £299 Carrera today, had just as much fun but it was retrobike meet and I would have been poked with a stick until I went away....

I know I contradict myself but if it had been a dry summers day today, I could have done the route on any of my old retrobikes.


BTW, while I was out today, I passed lots of 'moderns' having mechanicals...

Couldn't have put it better.

Dry - out with the retro
Wet - 'throwaway' modern steed

 

[ededwards]

Is Retro all it's cracked up to be?

Yes.

 

[bduc61]

Well

I was reading an interesting study the other day, which was published in the "bicycle journal" a quite interesting quartely, with a readership of about 245 000 subscribing readers.

They commissioned a survey, on a rather similar subject : has the quality and efficiency of bikes deteriorated between 1990 and 2008.(survey was carried out in 200

The survey was sent to the 9846 bikes shops in northern america and canada ( unfortunately none in continental europe) but we will assume that these results are statistically significant as about 72.5 % of the shops answered, a very high and satisfactory hit ratio.

The question received a unanimous answer, 84.5% of the respondant chose either
I strongly agree ( 21.7%)
I agree ( 62.8%)
a mere 11.7% disagreed
a 1.2% strongly disagreed
2.6% had no opinion

I think it settles the case.

Survey sample big, very high and representative answer rate, methodology recognized ( the survey was carried out following the well known Mundzubloodecue model, a pioneer in survey methodology who was a professor at the MIT in the 60's)

I think the mods can lock the post