In a message dated 5/19/02 6:27:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> At 5:37 PM -0400 5/19/02, GPVB1@cs.com wrote:
> >Just for everyone's edification & grins, after my first post on this
> issue, I
> >received one negative response (Brandon's), which interestingly was
> It was a rebuttal to a post on the list and wasn't really just for
> Greg. Plus I don't like to take good debates off list. Greg just
> specifically listed in order many myths that folks have a tendency
> to use as justifications to like old bikes. I see to often on the
> list people poo-pooing anything new without having any real facts to
> back them up. I'm not trying to be "negative" think of it as
> constructive criticism.
> Face it folks we love old bikes because they look good and hold a lot
> of history for us. Just like vintage collectors of cars, radios, and
> toasters it's about heart felt feelings associated with the object.
> It's not about qualitative performance. As myself and numerous
> others on the list have pointed the arguments of most people are
> apples to oranges, or more like apples to artichokes. When we hide
> behind myths of performance and construction we take away from the
> reality of style difference. I like old bikes because they look
> good, I'm not too proud to admit it. I like slacker angles, level
> top tubes, and subtler paint just to look at. I do also like the way
> classic steel bikes ride since they're a little more forgiving ride
> and and more stable at slower speeds. Mostly it's about the look.
> Again I'd also add that as a hobby historian the history of the bikes
> really interests me too.
> Central Coast Calif.
1) You misunderstood my original post completely. Please go re-read it. I never said old classic bikes were "better."
2) Myths? Bullshit!!
A2 MI USA