View Brandon_Fenton's Posts
<< Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next >>Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-20 14:51:35
flatario,
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against people who ride without cranks, I know tons of people who do. Mizarre comes to mind and he has some awsome stuff. My issue is mostly with the 'unfair advantage' aspect. I don't think that people who ride without cranks are lesser as people, it's a personal choice like anything is. Understand I'm not trying to be a dick or 'segregate' different forms of riding but, I think my hockey net example is the perfect analogy for what I'm trying to get accross. Do you guys understand what I mean by the hockey net example?
Profile Nankai shell posted on 2006-10-19 15:07:15
A lot of people are selling these now, anything wrong with them I should know about?
Re: New Parts for sale posted on 2006-10-19 15:03:56
Dibs on Diversion 5 PM me with price details
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-19 14:59:28
[quote author=flatario link=topic=21172.msg230847#msg230847 date=1161291743]
what about people that cant afford a better option? I myself ride the wolfgang set up because i have too. Im a student i have thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt so when my freecoaster went out i had no other choice about the situation as i am mainly backwheel ride, so according to your logic i should not be entitled the same oppurtunity to compete as another dividual who happens to have a chain? I think you need to deal with your priorities about the sport because your view is definately whack.
[/quote]
Dude that is just an excuse. I am a student too and I am in tens of thosands of dollars in debt and have lived below poverty level for years. You know what ? If you can't afford a $15 one peice crank than you can't afford to enter a contest and you shouldn't worry about it. My freecoasters never seem to work but that doesn't mean I have to take the cranks out--you could just remove the chain--that way the cranks are still there and you are not given as much of an UNFAIR advantage. That's what Wolfgang did at one point and I think it is better. And you know what, I said "if it were up to me" which it isn't, so don't fret; but if I held a contest, I would insist that the pros all have cranks or that they be penalized a little for not having them. You don't have to take such offense, many 'sports' have equipment guidelines that everyone must follow for fairness, what I am suggesting is no different. Imagine if at a hockey game a team showed up with their own net and it was smaller than the other team's net, and their excuse was that they didn't have enough money to buy the official size net; the game would not be fair no matter how you look at it. And don't tell me I need to deal with my priorities in your fucking condescending tone. I am clearly stating why I think what I do, the only way you are likely to change my mind would be by providing better argumens in support of you view, until that happens your petty jibberish about what is 'whack' is not likely to persuade anyone who doesn't already hold your particular biased view.
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-19 10:51:13
[quote author=outriding link=topic=21172.msg230693#msg230693 date=1161266812]
[color=Blue]
I understand what your saying Brandon but I ask you:
why do you (and others) consider that cranks are an "obstacle" and that without them your in "advantage"?
Some people who don't do pedal tricks could consider them an obstacle
but then again,
People who do pedal tricks consider them essencial.
Whats an obstacle for some isnt for others.
The same goes with it being an advantage or not.
If some people can do tricks easier without cranks,
other cant do tricks without them.
So, to finish off, let people ride how they want dont discriminate them or call them names for that.
Lets all have a beer. :lol:
[/color]
[/quote]
Here, here!! to the beer! Yeah, I get ya. Well I'm just talking from my own experience pedals get in my way a lot and without them I would be at a huge advantage because I don't do many pedal tricks. I see what you are saying about some people doing so many pedal tricks that to not have them would be a dissadvantage but, do you really think that's why people take them off ? --to dissadvantage themselves ? I'm inclinded to think the opposite. Not to mention, many 'pedal' tricks can be done on the bottom bracket to compensate so I don't think it would be a huge dissadvantage to them. All in all, based upon my personal experience with riding, I still believe that ultimately, riding crankless gives one an unfair advantage and I find it aesthetically unappealing.
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-19 06:35:37
[quote author=outriding link=topic=21172.msg230663#msg230663 date=1161252580]
[quote author=Brandon_Fenton link=topic=21172.msg230528#msg230528 date=1161221342]
As said before, if it doesn't have cranks then it's not a bike. People can ride whatever the hell they want but, in a contest I think it does give them an unfair advantage to not have to adjust to the pedals like everyone else. If it were up to me I wouldn't let anyone without a drive train compete. Honestly, I think is kind of a pussy way out, I mean, yeah guys like wolfgang are damn good but he has done the same tricks with a crank in so why turn your bike into a scooter? Imagine if someone like Nathan Penonzek rode without cranks; it would definitly take away from the impressiveness of his lines. And to say that taking your cranks off is just like cutting your bars down (i.e. because it makes things easier), is just b.s. --it would be more like taking your bars right off and holding onto the stem alone. There are core parts to a 'bike', lose them and you lose what it is to have a bike.
[/quote]
[color=Blue]I disagree with you Brandon.
Do you also discriminate people who ride brakeless?
From your logic, brakes are an essencial part of a bicycle and if yoiu remove them then you have an unfair advantage in regard to other riders.
Tell me, do you use brakes?[/color][/quote]
I respect your right to disagree. It's quite a trivial little matter to be concerned about anyhow. Yes I have the power to discern those who ride with or without brakes. The main reason why I am against crankless riding ***in contests*** is because it give those riders and ***unfair advantage***. And actually, I never stated that brakes were an essential part of a bicycle. I have been known to ride with and without brakes. The difference is that riding without brakes does NOT give you an ***unfair advantage*** when riding ***in contests*** if anything, it makes riding more difficult.
[quote author=outriding link=topic=21172.msg230663#msg230663 date=1161252580]
[quote author=Brandon_Fenton link=topic=21172.msg230592#msg230592 date=1161228153]
[quote author=norcalflat link=topic=21172.msg230531#msg230531 date=1161221957]
Well every rider has the option to take their cranks off, you shouldnt be penalized for taking them off, unless riders start getting "bonus points" or whatever for riding without brakes. Leave all the little bullshit nitpicky rules to the team sports.
[/quote]
Man, I've been thinking brakeless riders should get bonus points for years, hehe.
[/quote]
[color=Blue]....you dont make any sense Brandon [/color]
[/quote]
Dude, that makes perfect sense what are you talking about? Don't confuse your inability to understand with my ability to state things clearly.
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-18 20:30:08
[quote author=jakup link=topic=21172.msg230550#msg230550 date=1161223554]
[quote author=Brandon_Fenton link=topic=21172.msg230528#msg230528 date=1161221342]
There are core parts to a 'bike', lose them and you lose what it is to have a bike.
[/quote]
It's sad that we get so caught up in linguistics, especially in such a nich sport as flatland BMX. If a defining characteristic of the original bike was a large cylindrical rod that went into your ass to hold you into place, then BMX riders decided it was uncomfortable (and, furthermore, detrimental to BMX) and took it off, would that suddenly make them no longer bike-riders? Perhaps by traditional definition, but who really cares?[/quote]
You mean that rod can be removed ?!! Man my ass is gonna thank me!
[quote author=jakup link=topic=21172.msg230550#msg230550 date=1161223554]
If you don't use your cranks and want to try crankless, don't let other's criticism stop you. It's much worse to stay with cranks because of what people are saying even though you would like to try crankless than anything you could do to your bike. [/quote]
I totally agree, I'm not really gonna bother to argure for my point on this one, it's merely an opinion justified or not, you decide for yourself. we are all entiteled to have an opinion,...what did that t-shirt say ?...opinions are like ass-holes --everybody has one :wink:
[quote author=jakup link=topic=21172.msg230550#msg230550 date=1161223554]
Doesn't everyone constantly complain about "cookie-cutter" riders: riders who all dress alike, do the same tricks, and ride the same bikes? I see it all the time, so why then is there an equal amount of criticism for people who try something different?
[/quote]
Eh, I've never complained that they ride the same bikes,...maybe that they are all too short but that's not exactly the same thing. Have fun with this one fellas.
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-18 20:22:33
[quote author=norcalflat link=topic=21172.msg230531#msg230531 date=1161221957]
Well every rider has the option to take their cranks off, you shouldnt be penalized for taking them off, unless riders start getting "bonus points" or whatever for riding without brakes. Leave all the little bullshit nitpicky rules to the team sports.
[/quote]
Man, I've been thinking brakeless riders should get bonus points for years, hehe.
Re: FLATLAND WITHOUT CRANKS. YOUR COMMENTS. posted on 2006-10-18 18:29:02
As said before, if it doesn't have cranks then it's not a bike. People can ride whatever the hell they want but, in a contest I think it does give them an unfair advantage to not have to adjust to the pedals like everyone else. If it were up to me I wouldn't let anyone without a drive train compete. Honestly, I think is kind of a pussy way out, I mean, yeah guys like wolfgang are damn good but he has done the same tricks with a crank in so why turn your bike into a scooter? Imagine if someone like Nathan Penonzek rode without cranks; it would definitly take away from the impressiveness of his lines. And to say that taking your cranks off is just like cutting your bars down (i.e. because it makes things easier), is just b.s. --it would be more like taking your bars right off and holding onto the stem alone. There are core parts to a 'bike', lose them and you lose what it is to have a bike.
Re: Quamen Bowls for sale or parts trades posted on 2006-10-17 20:05:49
Call it rent :-)
Re: UFC 64 posted on 2006-10-17 17:52:08
Just saw it, man Silva's knees were great. I can't believe Franklin just stood there and tried to absorb them. I mean how hard is it to get out of a Thai clinch? Looked like Franklin's nose was broken too.
UFC 64 posted on 2006-10-16 12:52:07
Anyone know where I can watch the Franklin vs. Silva bout on-line for free?
Re: Faith: Not wanting to know what is true posted on 2006-10-15 16:32:45
Not sure, I haven't read much Rawls. My most extensive ethics training is in utilitarian moral theory (a la John Stuart Mill), but I have some familiarity with contractarianism. It's a very broad feild of theorizing. When I think of giving an intro to the subject of morality, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics comes to mind, as well as Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Mill's Utilitarianism, and perhaps Alasdair MacIntyre's work. But by all means, check it all out.
Re: Quamen Bowls for sale or parts trades posted on 2006-10-15 12:20:25
It's for a good cause :-D
Re: Alliance 'Equinox' prototype f/s Price Drop!! posted on 2006-10-15 12:19:33
Help me live off of something other than macaroni and cheese!!
Re: Faith: Not wanting to know what is true posted on 2006-10-14 21:17:14
Cool, sorry for sounding like a dick.
Re: Alliance 'Equinox' prototype for sale posted on 2006-10-13 21:17:52
This is being bumped and there is a 100$ price drop!!!
Re: Faith: Not wanting to know what is true posted on 2006-10-13 20:27:46
[quote author=MichaelRatcliffe link=topic=20083.msg228828#msg228828 date=1160772385]
The idea behind morals is that they are a set of values to give guidance. Guidance is hard to achieve when they become flexible. Morals have to be absolute in base, but open minded in implementation.
For the mad man analogy, if each person is able to create a set of moral, then a serial killer is as much in the right as the priest. So if they as flexible as that, how are we to decide what is right in society?
[/quote]
Why can't morals be both flexible and give guidance? Seems that you are almost saying that this is the case when you say that they need to be "open-minded in implementation".
To answer your second paragraph,...we decide what is right via reason. To devise a moral system requires rules (a mad man could hardly accomplish this in a satisfactory way) and even if a 'madman' did devise some set of moral rules, the system could be weighed against the others (just as moral systems are evaluated now) to decide which makes more sense, is more useful, is more in line with our natures, sentiments, intuitions and the like.
Re: Faith: Not wanting to know what is true posted on 2006-10-13 10:46:48
[quote author=MichaelRatcliffe link=topic=20083.msg228369#msg228369 date=1160635826]
If morality becomes subjective, then they are no longer morals. Then the madman is as in the right as the priest, or the philospher.
[/quote]
My questions in order for your first and second sentence are: How so? Why is that?
Re: Faith: Not wanting to know what is true posted on 2006-10-11 06:55:20
[quote author=infamous3140 link=topic=20083.msg228047#msg228047 date=1160540287]
Who really wants to listen to someone that (if this isn't close-minded I don't know what is) believes that dinosaurs didn't exist, and were put in the earth by God to test our faith, because they aren't mentioned in the Bible [/quote]
That one is just hilarious; --the trickster god, haha, prancing arround messing with people's heads just cause 'he' can,...priceless. Bill Hicks does a great scketch about that, in fact Bill Hicks has a lot a funny things to say about fundamentalists.
