
Sphinx
Members-
Posts
2032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Sphinx
-
So you're saying that the media are attention whores grovelling in the dirt? Yes, I agree. And Clinton was a sleazy bastard who got was he deserved? Yes, I agree. Bush is a tool? I disagree. I'd say he's a very poor speaker, but I agree with some of his decisions. Overall, though, politicians, including shrub, are sleazebags. Now crawl back into your little hole.
-
porker porker!!!! SprayShaw, don't you have a job to go to or something?
-
Good point. It's the best response to your post.
-
So what is your point? The Basic Course is not a climbing class, it is a mountaineering course with all that entails: fitness, route finding and navigation, equipment, weather resources, roped travel, crevasse rescue, etc. It is up to the students to become good climbers on their own. The mountaineers just give them the tools to be safe. Catbirdseat, you gotta crawl before you can run. You can't teach everything at the same time. Don't try to teach navigation, belaying, pro placement, rope mangement, and fitness on the same climb. Start by learning the ropes at a crag, gain fitness by hiking, learn orientation in the city park for starters, etc.
-
I looked at his picture, read his rant, and got the impression that he was another frustrated, angry fatass. Maybe he should eat a ? Yes, but he makes some excellent points that aren't PC, which gets your panties in a bunch.
-
No, you're too stupid to write a coherent thought. After reading Dave's post, I'd consider this more a thoughtful statement than a personal insult. Dave, there's a difference between 'an' and 'and'.
-
You're wrong in that he committed the crime of perjury. He was not impeached for screwing an intern.
-
Well, phew, good thing that Ken Schram was talking about ALL BIKES ON THE ROAD.
-
Besides, this is Oregon legislature, and everybody knows that Oregon is a bike-loving hippie-embracing shithole. (yes, catbirdseat, I'll admit, this post is idiotic. But the rest of them in this thread aren't.)
-
Sounds reasonable. But you still won't be able to run stop signs: "Creates offense of improper entry into intersection where traffic is controlled by stop sign. Punishes by maximum fine of { - $75 - } { + $300 + }. Creates offense of improper entry into intersection where traffic is controlled by flashing red signal. Punishes by maximum fine of { - $75 - } { + $300 + }." Besides, all is good and fine if you obey the law. Debating whether the laws should be changed is an entirely different argument. However, I reiterate that people should stay in accordance with the laws even if they disagree with them. If enough people disagree, the law will change, as you just demonstrated.
-
Why do all the valid arguments come from people who's opinions are in the minority? Seems like cc.com is a gathering place for idiots. PP The rest of you losers:
-
Nooo, I was talking about the durability of the HEADS of the tools. I thought you climb on Cobras, Colin.
-
Bikes running red lights or stop signs might not be much of a danger to anybody EXCEPT THEMSELVES. Yes, it's difficult to run someone over with a bike. BUT if a car hits a bike, the driver is always to blame, no matter what the rider of the bike did. Again, why the double standard? If someone is being dangerous, to others or to themselves, they should be held accountable. Period. Oh, and what exceptions are you talking about? Running red lights and stopsigns? Cutting off motorists? How do these actions not cause harm to anyone? What if a car is forced to swerve due to a bike running a stop sign, and hits another car, or pedestrian? Did the bike really cause no harm by disobeying the law?
-
Bear-Bird, you are being redundant. The fact has been established already. Catbirdseat, I'd agree that much of our collective spray is idiotic. However, I'm unsure how my arguments in this thread idiotic or ignorant. Saying "you're stupid" in response to a valid argument is a childish argument that serves no purpose other than making however made the statement appear foolish. I think most of you are blinded by your overwhelming desire to be PC. Try to think logically, if only for a few seconds. My argument still stands. Hold bicyclists accountable for their actions. If they are allowed to share the road with cars, they should follow the same laws, and they should get punished just as car drivers are when they break those laws. I fail to understand how this is idiotic.
-
You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course we don't want crack dealers on every street. But do you really think that keeping police from ticketing bikes is going to reduce drug dealing? It's a ridiculous argument. One more caveat: if they aren't going to ticked bicyclists to focus on crack dealers instead, they shouldn't ticket cars either. Why are bikes special?
-
All the pro-biker arguments presented here are based on the false premise that bikes are somehow more special than cars. Why should the car stop for the stop sign and the bike shouldn't? Why should the bike be allowed to ride on the wrong side of the road? Why the double standard? Both are vehicles that share the road. If they're on the same road, they should follow the same laws. BTW, nice troll, Jon.
-
How are they so suck??
-
Ahh, so cops should focus on more serious crimes than traffic? Yeah. Tell the next cop who pulls you over. "Uh, sir? Yes, I don't believe you should give me a ticket. Why? Well, wouldn't you agree that your time would be better spent arresting REAL criminals? Like bank robbers or drug dealers? Isn't that a good idea?"
-
Hold up. What you're suggesting is for everybody to judge which laws apply to them. So if you're driving a sleek black Porsche should you be allowed to speed because "this car is meant to go faster than most, so it's safe for me to do so"? IIf you let some people break the law, then the entire system will fall apart. There's always some excuse, whether it's 'My bike doesn't trip the sensor' or 'I've got to get home for dinner'.
-
Just because biking is PC due to the 'environmentally friendlyness' factor doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye upon what they do. Ursa: so what you're saying is: it a PERSONAL decision whether a bike should run a red light? I've never heard such bullshit. By your reasoning, a car would be allowed to run a red light, too. But noooooo, if a car does that, they get a ticket.