Originally Posted by
Maelochs
This whole post in one sentence: Some people think their preferences are automatically better than others, and can't stop saying so.
The inventiveness in explaining the defensiveness was fairly creative the first time through ... about a decade and a half ago.
What
Maelochs wrote ^^^
My response :
Originally Posted by
3alarmer
...
some people insist on using the phrase "some people" in argument. I don't know why, other than it serves to further confuse discussion.
Here's the dictionary def of "preference". It contains nothing about "better" or even "worse".
I can only imagine what will follow after "some people" find out about the guy with a "preference" for travel by train.
preference /prĕf′ər-əns, prĕf′rəns/noun
- The selecting of someone or something over another or others.
"has a decided preference for travel by train."
- The right or chance to make a choice.
"The program offers you the preference to use the mouse or function keys."
- Someone or something so chosen or preferred: synonym: choice.
"What are your musical preferences?"
Maelochs most recent troll, complaining about dishonesty (again...it's a regular theme with him.)
Originally Posted by
Maelochs
When people dishonestly try to "procve" that their preferences are "better," I might call them out, because that is either ignorant or dishonest.
The best bit was 3-alarmer trying to "prove" that "preference" didn't mean "better." he even looked up a definition.
Maybe he should have been a bit smarter ... considering that the point he was addressing was me saying preference didn't involve a concept of 'better."
.
.
So in all honesty, I don't know what to make of someone who uses the "some people" game, to cover his tracks in delivering indirect personal attacks. And who then complains about dishonesty, while continuing to claim the moral high ground, as what seems pretty obviously an attack on some vague user group, all the while claiming not to "care" what anyone "uses".
Obviously, it's logically and factually bankrupt, within the context of this thread. But I get he has a problem with me, whatever I write, and feels a need to attack in this manner...I guess because his standards for "honesty" include a preference for bull ****. Reporting it does no good. Rational argument certainly does no good. All I can do is ignore you , Bubba. I wish you luck in your continuing search for an honest man. Maybe they'll let you change your username to Diogenes ?
If you can find something in here that I wrote claiming any system of shifting is "better", now's your chance to quote it. I have written that all of them are better than stopping and shifting your chain by hand. And I did, indeed, state that I like DT shifters for certain half step gearing uses, because I can accomplish double shifts with one motion. And I don't ride on the hoods, mostly. Here's your dishonest response to that.
.
.
Originally Posted by
Maelochs
I converted that bike to 3x7 with normal rings and brifters .... half-step and six cogs, I was generally not riding in a comfortable gear because to be in an efficient ratio all the time I needed to shift one or both ends almost repeatedly. it is sort of like having a crank-starter .... great when that was cutting edge and needed, but as soon as something better was developed ...... Double shifts work with Any shift mechanism.
Best part of indexed gears (proper indexed front derailleur particularly) is that I can double-shift effortlessly and flawlessly without needing to think about it.
Sorry, retrogrouches .... but bikes today are just a whole lot better to actually Ride than they were "back in the day." Aesthetics are personal, but utilization .....
Nice examples of Straw Man fallacy, argument that
your own preferences are, indeed, better, and the presumption that easier for you = better, because retrogrouches. I'm watching self parody in slow motion, while you vent your various splenic screeds in General Cycling, all the while complaining that anyone you find yourself in disagreement with is "dishonest". Even if you have to manufacture the reasons you disagree.
But here's a tip going forward. The next time you either state, or even imply, I'm "dishonest", I'm going to start reporting it. It probably won't happen often, because I don't spend much time in this forum. But if you can't quote something that supports your manufactured narrative here, with regard to me and what I've written, the horse you rode in on is in for a good time. Here's what I really wrote, quoted for you. Good luck in demonstrating your "honesty."
Originally Posted by
3alarmer
I'm happy you can do simultaneous shifts. I'm sure you're happy I can do them, too. As I said already, I find it much more convenient and comfortable to drop one hand to the DT, from wherever it happens to be on the bar, than to return both hands to the hoods to accomplish the same operation. It's only one example, and there's really no need to make a fuss over it. And FWIW, the double shift requires much less practice to accomplish, once you move on in the tech to some sort of indexing, like the mid/late 80's Shimano stuff.
I'd be the first one to state that once you get past about 6 cog spacing in the rear, I have trouble hitting shifts precisely using friction. I have to look down sometimes in those situations, to trim. Partly that is because I have a lot of different bicycles, most of them set up a little differently with regard to gearing and shifting. AS stated earlier, all of them shift better than getting off and changing the chain over by hand...which I have also done a few times.
Surely this whole thread is another tempest in a teapot ?
.
.
Looking forward to meeting your horse. Cordially yours, etc, etc.