Turning The TW200 Into A Street Bike (Mostly)
in [Tech]
|
From: Bill Miller. on 11 Aug 2008 16:58 On Aug 11, 1:34 pm, "." <Rhiann...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 12:00 pm, Geyser <full...(a)ebb.net> wrote: > > > No, I don't think that you ever understood Uncle Jay. He was only > > talking about you. > > But Bill *is* Uncle Jay, so the conversation between "Bill" and "Jay" > must have resembled the one between Norman Bates and his mother... My uncle would not be pleased to hear that since he and I are world's apart in many things, but I do admire him and thank you for the comparison. Bill
From: The Older Gentleman on 11 Aug 2008 17:11 Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1935(a)excite.com> wrote: > "Primarily designed for off-road use" and "more > suitable for off-road use" have exactly the same meaning to anyone > whose agenda is not just to be an argumentative old grouch. My Uncle > Jay was right, you definitely are someone who's useless in the > information department since all you like to do is argue about > anything you don't bring up yourself. Wrong Let's take an easily understandable analogy. Fighter aircraft. Specifically, the Polish PZL11. Primarily designed for air superioity. Not suitable for air superiority, as it was shot out of the skies in 1939. You see, words and language are my thing. They are how I earn my living. I exercise vastly more precision in using them than you do. The English language is a very exact instrument. If you want to argue specifics, as you did, you must be prepared to be tripped up by someone who can wield the instrument better than you can. Now, yes, your lovely dual-purpose tyres will be better than the knobblies fitted to your toy motorcycle as standard. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit."
From: Bill Miller. on 11 Aug 2008 17:51 On Aug 11, 2:11 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: "Primarily designed for off-road use" and "more suitable for off-road use" have exactly the same meaning to anyone whose agenda is not just to be an argumentative old grouch. My Uncle Jay was right, you definitely are someone who's useless in the information department since all you like to do is argue about anything you don't bring up yourself. > Wrong. Let's take an easily understandable analogy. Fighter aircraft. Specifically, the Polish PZL11. Primarily designed for air superioity.Not suitable for air superiority, as it was shot out of the skies in 1939. Gawd, a horribly weak analogy that has no bearing on the subject at hand. > You see, words and language are my thing. They are how I earn my living. I exercise vastly more precision in using them than you do. The English language is a very exact instrument. If you want to argue specifics, as you did, you must be prepared to be tripped up by someone who can wield the instrument better than you can. The only thing you "exercise" is your self-inflated view of yourself. And your lame wielding of the "instrument" could easily lead to you being derided, especially after that weak preceding so-called "analogy" you spewed forth. Dictionary definitions.... primarily = "for the most part," therefore the stock knobbies on the TW200 are designed, "for the most part for off-road use." An absolutely TRUE statement without any qualifications and using quite correct English. more suitable = "more designed for a particular use," therefore the stock knobbies on the TW200 are "more designed for the particular use of off-road riding." An absolutely TRUE statement without any qualifications and using quite correct English and also meaning the exact same thing as the previous definition. Now you can twist and turn that all you want but they mean ESSENTIALLY the same thing Mr. Big English Expert so go try your smokescreen of knowledge on someone else. You're still a failure here. > Now, yes, your lovely dual-purpose tyres will be better than the knobblies fitted to your toy motorcycle as standard. And calling it a "toy" motorcycle is just further indication of your little boy immaturity of being snippity when you're proven to be wrong. Bill
From: Geyser on 12 Aug 2008 01:16 Bill Miller. wrote: > On Aug 11, 12:00 pm, Geyser <full...(a)ebb.net> wrote: >> Bill Miller. wrote: >>> ... >>> Yet my Uncle Jay has told me how dificult >>> it is for you to ever agree totally with someone or to agree to a >>> statement that is true that someone else, and not you, came up with, >>> so I understand. >> No, I don't think that you ever understood Uncle Jay. He was only >> talking about you. > > Well, obviously you do not read a lot of The Older Gentleman's posts > which are rife with argumentative nonsense many times unreleated to > the focus of the thread. There's no focus. Why are you asking questions if you already know what the correct answers are? Are you going to post the Bridgestone tire links a 5th time? You weren't born too late, the Chinese are remaking the vintage Hondas you missed. You can even get tires in pink camouflage now.
From: The Older Gentleman on 12 Aug 2008 02:29
Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1935(a)excite.com> wrote: > > Wrong. Let's take an easily understandable analogy. Fighter aircraft. Specifically, the Polish PZL11. Primarily designed for air superioity.Not suitable for air superiority, as it was shot out of the skies in 1939. > > Gawd, a horribly weak analogy that has no bearing on the subject at > hand. No. A perfect one. One that illustrates the difference between 'designed for' and 'suitable for' perfectly. > > > You see, words and language are my thing. They are how I earn my living. I exercise vastly more precision in using them than you do. The English language is a very exact instrument. If you want to argue specifics, as you did, you must be prepared to be tripped up by someone who can wield the instrument better than you can. > > The only thing you "exercise" is your self-inflated view of yourself. > And your lame wielding of the "instrument" could easily lead to you > being derided, especially after that weak preceding so-called > "analogy" you spewed forth. Dictionary definitions.... > > primarily = "for the most part," therefore the stock knobbies on the > TW200 are designed, "for the most part for off-road use." An > absolutely TRUE statement without any qualifications and using quite > correct English. Agreed. > > more suitable = "more designed for a particular use," Wrong. Which dictionary did you get that from, out of interest? Are you going to turn into another JS, by the way? Because having not one but two ranting rattle-throwers in the same month is rare fortune. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." |