Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: fast tires
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:56:02 -0400
Organization: None of the above
Lines: 275
Message-ID: <87sejqcxrx.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
References: <hkp85ktp9ldn2sior0s9sc9fakvs4ark1c@4ax.com>
	<tqq85kpl41p1odul79lgedn19gvndns1oh@4ax.com>
	<r4r85kplf4e82fv2duonegr7t6nlfg54fn@4ax.com>
	<psv85k1hiqkl38v5sk45b2rff7mnpks055@4ax.com>
	<4f095kh0d5eonng64iuf3kv5n98kfmi202@4ax.com>
	<ek195kh8ehev0gup9ipiisc7fu5aip5j21@4ax.com>
	<9r695ktpsv405bak1ijerdtlqg93kglof0@4ax.com>
	<ed995k166n06i0i6q12lum1hqcqs8ld64e@4ax.com>
	<1032dur$8ais$1@dont-email.me>
	<h87a5kdtlihhsoji733gvfgr32mhgmdvcl@4ax.com>
	<1033mec$1dls$4@dont-email.me>
	<msva5kdm4ic2qvsacpbg9f5rfll747mk43@4ax.com>
	<10342ar$49pt$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:56:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a9f27414dd78b5a0baf04128f6a6b83";
	logging-data="1391667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CwVXTASoxvfFmQbKZgR9yOJYPNyHevHI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2HuEVpPpXnUF3G9fnGIRmQwhXtM=
	sha1:+a6Cywt3ZbA9fqb5iyLB322B2Ok=

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:

> On 6/20/2025 10:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:07:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting on its mass,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any engineering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same.  Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practicing engineer will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems a bit excessive.  Do you memorize everything?  I don't,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations.  If you have memorized everything, I too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Is
>>>>>>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
>>>>>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>> change the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll bite.  Rote is just one of many ways people learn.  We all
>>>>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
>>>>>>>>>>> things, etc.  We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
>>>>>>>>>>> good way to begin learning.  I still learn by rote today.  For
>>>>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
>>>>>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts.  Some might be true, but
>>>>>>>>>>> most are false.  I do some research and develop some understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little.  If you've read my
>>>>>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
>>>>>>>>>>> of that research.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof of your claims?  If Frank had copied
>>>>>>>>>>> from a book
>>>>>>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
>>>>>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
>>>>>>>>>>> mass.  I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
>>>>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
>>>>>>>>>>> The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
>>>>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly
>>>>>>>>>>> plagiarized from a
>>>>>>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing.  One
>>>>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
>>>>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what you're
>>>>>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it
>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
>>>>>>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's fine background information.  You were the one who
>>>>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion.  I'm trying to determine
>>>>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
>>>>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here are two of my questions that you ignored.  I obviously can't
>>>>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
>>>>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
>>>>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc.  I do care how they derived or calculated those
>>>>>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.  Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
>>>>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an
>>>>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
>>>>>> cut and paste..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.  If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
>>>>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what
>>>>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it
>>>>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first
>>>>>>>>> learning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
>>>>>> was that I learn by analyzing how things work.  I am, as you might
>>>>>> have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
>>>>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
>>>>>> discussion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
>>>>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
>>>>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
>>>>>>> with a "one-liner".  That's fine.  I can't force you to answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
>>>>>>> conclusions.  However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
>>>>>>> because it would be too much for most readers.  I simply reference the
>>>>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
>>>>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
>>>>>>> comments.  I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
>>>>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
>>>>>> interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
>>>>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
>>>>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
>>>>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
>>>>>> researching and how they define and label it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
>>>>>> "studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
>>>>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you?  How about
>>>>>>> someone else's data?  Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
>>>>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
>>>>>>> conclusions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
>>>>>> pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========