's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Why don't we just ignore cosmicallyconscience?(18 posts)

Why don't we just ignore cosmicallyconscience?look271
Mar 3, 2002 9:07 AM
Then the little dweeb will go away. While it may pain you not to respond, don't. Then we can all go about our business of debating Shimano V campy, steel v alum, which new bike for me, etc? I personally think it's just wasting space in an otherwise useful forum. Now let him drop to the depths where he came from!
re: Why don't we just ignore cosmicallyconscience?cosmicallyconscience
Mar 3, 2002 9:16 AM
I am sorry you feel this way about the most serious discussion ever to appear on this form.
re: Why don't we just ignore cosmicallyconscience?johnjohn
Mar 3, 2002 11:04 AM
Shouldn't it be "Cosmicallyconscious"?
re: Why don't we just ignore cosmicallyconscience?kilofoxtrot
Mar 3, 2002 1:12 PM
or maybe comicallyconscious????????????? :)
Yep. That's the way to go about it. (nm)Sintesi at home
Mar 3, 2002 9:21 AM
I do why don't you?cyclopathic
Mar 3, 2002 10:17 AM
it is obvious guy is incapable of posting anything but flame baits
I do why don't you?look271
Mar 3, 2002 10:22 AM
I have been. It just seems that there are members here on the board that needed a reminder, that's all.
thnx appreciate it ;-) nmcyclopathic
Mar 3, 2002 10:26 AM
I fuly support cosmicallyconscienceStanley
Mar 3, 2002 11:05 AM
I think the guy makes some extremely valid points. Blissful ignorance of the unsustainability of western likestyles must be addressed. Otherwise our nations will continue to impose poverty and destruction both on the "third wold" and future generations in our own nations who will NOT have the same standard of living as there won't be a heck of a lot left. All of which is relevant to cycling as the use of bicycles is a ecologicaly sound mode of transport and bike advocacy and rights are often argued on the basis of environmental and health benefits of cycle use.....
Fine, but...Sintesi at home
Mar 3, 2002 11:31 AM
But isn't this a CAR ISSUE? Or a philosophical paradigmatic (excuse me, big word)issue. Let's put this on the non-cycling topics board and let the obvious digressions go where they will. A lot of legitimate cycling topics drop to the bottom too quickly due to cosmicallyconscience's provocations. There is a forum here that would better suit this topic. Not everyone is interested in his/her philosophy. Don't you agree Cosmicallyconscience? Interested parties will respond w/out bothering the rest. Let's keep the peace and be helpful. This board is more usefull to many newcomers w/out getting caught up in these type of arguments.
Well, I'm sorry, but... (read this if you have a brain)tempeteKerouak
Mar 3, 2002 11:48 AM
I tried to point the inconsequence of both sides wrongfull argumentation, and to discuss the liberty of choice, the regulations that frame the expression of this liberty.

That may not have been cycling related.

Then this cosmicallycarriedawaydude came back with his all too religious mother heart, evil ways and save the dodos kind of stuff. I did not see any valid discussion in all his replies.

Further more, he has assumed that anybody opposing his post, either in form or content was an evil opposer. Never has it crossed his mind that there are many on this board that do their part as environment-oriented people. They still may not share his views and/or ways to express them. Never has he ever considered that he is not the rightous or the most rightous here. This person did not post QUESTIONS or does not want to share and discuss.

This person wants to direct and paternalise, to impose his message and then defend it to the ridicule shallow end. It happens that I don't like SUV, that I use mass transportation AND alternately my bike to go to work, that I vote too... But he will never share this with me, because he's too far gone. If this person does not have the excuse of youth and immaturity (they don't always go together), then, I repeat it, this is a dangerous person.

This person is not cosmically counscious, he is navel tormented. Sorry pal.
Watch the bait.Sintesi at home
Mar 3, 2002 12:06 PM
I sense facetiousness. This guy is not a member of this community yet. Not someone to take seriously Tempete.
You opened the can....Geof
Mar 3, 2002 12:50 PM
If your so unhappy (cosmically-whatever also) why don't you move to some third world country, or better yet sell all your evil, capitalist obtained posessions, donate the money to some poor family, so THEY can live the good life for awhile, then wallow in your own self-pity. The biggest problem with your type is that your all talk no walk. You rant the latest liberal "cause" but yet do nothing substantial to help it along. Except, pass along the gobbledy-gook rhetoric that ties onto some bandwagon. I know, let's just burn all the cars on the planet.

As I said, go into a true third world country and perhaps donate a good portion of your salary and move in with these people. It's not our responsibility to "save the world". Our economy and our government happens to be so strong because of the SUV, the Colnago bike, the Ksyrium Wheelsets etc. And a society that is will to spend the money for these goods. Capitalism... plain and simple. Don't play the have and have not game because then you just portray yourself as a jealous dogooder that cannot stand that someone else might be able to aford something you can't.

If your going to try to make some environmental point do so in science (real science) not on unsubstantiated, opinionated thinking. The evil scurge of the human race is no match for this planet, I promise you.

The whole point of all of this, is that this is not a topic for this board. There is an off-topic board for discussions such as these....

Keep it where it belongs...
it is not our responsibility to "save the world"Woof the dog
Mar 3, 2002 11:49 PM
some people, however, may think that there is no difference between killing and letting die. I think one philosopher's name is Singer, i think. He basically says that we are acting immorally spending extras on inessentials while others die of hunger.

Some dog food for thought, but i guess you all are right, it should be on non-cycling board.


it is not our responsibility to "save the world"cosmicallyconscience
Mar 4, 2002 5:35 AM
Singer is a smart man. Do you feel the same? I feel that it is our responsibility to help maintain balance in the universe.
I fuly support cosmicallyconscienceHappyGo
Mar 3, 2002 1:48 PM
Well, old CosmicBoy had better clean up his own backyard first. As a state, California is probably full of more "Western Excessive Lifestyles" than any other state in the Union. I think the Boy's two main problems are:

1) he apparently has a lot of difficulty reading or comprehending the English language, otherwise why would he bring up environmental issue complaints in a road bike forum?

2) Most of his shouting is completely unsupported by those nice little things known as facts. He chooses to ignore and or refuses to acknowledge huge environmental wrongs going on in his very home state while shouting for everyone else to clean up their environmental act. he ridiculously attempts to tell people they should boycott our President because he received a bike as a gift from the Trek corporation - what in the world did that have to do with environmental issues? His extremely biased and opaque Vegan/Peta views of the world are borderline ludicrous - does he actually think cattle farming contributes more to the Greenhouse effect than car emmissions in Calif???? I'd love to know which Petan or Vegan has been spoon feeding him that bunch of complete mularkey.

He basically appears to be the worst of all worlds - misinformed, no facts to support his outrageous claims, doesn't know the proper forum, manner or style with which to present his or her argument and completely blind of the huge environmental wrongs perpetrated in his very own state.

reminds me a lot of all the idiots who trashed Seattle during tha last big world economic conference there. Most of the idiots out in the street prtesting didn't even know what they were protesting if you asked them. Just a bunch of uninformed, unemployed, unmotivated malcontents for the most part trying to stir up trouble just for the sake of stirring up trouble.

Add it all up and you don't have what most people would consider a good combination for success on his or her part.
He is good for a laugh thoughspookyload
Mar 3, 2002 12:24 PM
Epsecially that boycot Trek babble. I was laughing my butt off at that. Why not boycott the Air Force too since he flies Air Force one. Oh wait...we need them to defend us and our constitutional rights of free speech. That would be going too far. Lets just boycott what is convenient then.
Mar 3, 2002 3:36 PM
Does the appearance of two such obvious TROLLers so close together strike anyone else as odd.

Cherry1 appeared on this board with the sole intention of soliciting emotional responses from the community for no other purpose than his own amusement. After the some initial brush fires the community ignored him and it soon became apparent that the Cherry1 web persona had run it's course.

So, hot on the heels of this expired shelf life comes this new persona "comicallyconscience". A persona of an extreme enviormentalist who sole purpose seems to attempt to illicit strong emotional responses.

Does anyone else think they may be the same Troll tossing our flamebait to see who bites? It's a sport, not a campaign.

Just a thought