Deeter, Robert makes sense. His post is well laid out and articulate.
So after wading through almost ten pages of bitchiness, wittingly sparked off by Robert, we finally get to be made privy to his “real” reason for stirring up this shit-storm in the first place? And we’re supposed to believe that this was his intent all along? Even your buddy mercurial doesn’t seem to buy it, and judging by the nature of his post, he knows you guys, personally.
So let me say it again, just so it doesn't slip through the cracks: I take no issue with his statements respecting the need for improved rider skills – I couldn’t agree more. I take issue with Robert’s incessant need to cause dischord.
Can you honestly tell me that you think the middle of an emotionally charged rant about inanities like “rep” and jumping to conclusions, a rant fraught with all kinds of bullshit posturing and schoolyard-style tussling, is that the right venue for discussing the improving of technique? It seems like, in this particular instance, the choir is the only group that heard the preacher preaching amidst the din of a pissed off congregation.
Answer me this: if Joe Newbie is coming too hot into a turn, is he going to think to himself, "Oh yeah, I seem to remember that, in the middle of Robert pointing out that some jackass from another forum was calling us a bunch of hacks, amidst all the name calling and shoving, he said something about braking in a corner not being a good thing." and then reacts accordingly? Or is he going to think, "Well braking has worked for me in the past -- it should work for me now while I'm mid-turn, right?"
What do you think the Hurt Report would indicate?
True, I haven't begun any discussions of my own on the subject of improving rider technique but that’s mainly because I find writing about riding, in the abstract, to be a lot like dancing about architecture . . . It can be done, but quite a lot gets lost in the translation. My interactions on-line tend to stick with being strictly social, so I guess that makes me a waste . . .
I do, however, try to make my contributions while on group rides. I try to keep it positive while explaining the whys and wherefores of why it's not a good idea to brake while on the edge of your contact patch, or why it’s not a good idea to stare at the object you're trying to avoid, and so on.
But perhaps I should follow Robert’s example -- maybe it would be more effective if, the next time I'm trying to help out someone, I whip it out and urinate on their shoe while chiding them for their flawed technique. Would that be a more poignant way to help another rider improve his or her skills? That seems to be pretty analogous what's been done so far in this thread . . .
Keep sticking your head in the sand though.
I’m not biting Berto. My beef is not with you. You have made it apparent that, in spite of your best attempts to make it appear otherwise, you do genuinely care about the welfare of your fellow riders. Robert, on the other hand, has not.
Anytime there's bad vibes being passed around on this forum, he's there, at the ready, with an array of pointed comments, bent on adding fuel to the fire. Often times, he's the one that starts the fires. This thread is, in my recollection, the only shit-storm he's participated in where he's had anything constructive to add. But even that was only after he'd been called to task. Normally, the responsibility of making of valid, helpful points in such situations seems to be left to you, the not-so-evil twin.
But I love to be proven wrong in situations like this . . .
I'll tell you what, I'm going to be at the Family’s meet this Wednesday and would gladly jump at the chance to buy either or both of you a frosty beverage of your choosing. Then we could sit down and discuss such lofty topics as: Safety, Skill Improvement, Group Ride Restructuring, and the nature of Best Intentions and maybe come up with some workable solutions for upping the collective skill level at BARF and making group rides better.
I'd honestly like very much to learn that my impressions of the situation are way off base . . .
