I am Jack's Smirking Revenge

little, yappy dogs

Monday, February 18, 2008

Giant Bicycles Part III

Previously on 'Giant Bicycles', we found that a not-very-used $1000 bicycle had broken, but that it was under warranty. Then we found that the warranty fix cost would come to more than the cost of a new bike.

The happy ending follows.

Bike 'n' Hike, here in Portland, OR, have been most excellent in their efforts to help me out with this.

I show up with a bike which they are not actually required to give me any warranty service on (because I bought it in Japan), and, after some investigation, the regional Giant rep gives Bike 'n' Hike the go-ahead to replace the broken frame or offer me a nice discount on a new bike in the shop.

Well, after much hemming and hawing over my lost $1000 (see entry part 2 for details), I finally decide to just replace the bike.

I ended up with the new Giant Yukon FX- a decent full-suspension bike with an aluminum frame and disc brakes.

Applause to Giant and Bike 'n' Hike. These guys know what service is, and they have a new loyal customer. Thanks guys!

Friday, February 08, 2008

Wikipedia 911 page: huh?

So, in going to the wikipedia "911 conspiracy theories" page, I find a real piece of crap of an article.

What I'd like to know is: who wrote this, and why is it so bad?

For many of the examples provided, there are quick and easily verifiable points available to post. For example, the melting point of steel, or, even, the melting point of the same kind of steel used in the towers framework. Furthermore, the environment and energy needed to achieve this melting point. Or, the free-fall speed of an object falling 1368 feet. Or, perhaps, the destructive force of a 9-ton jet engine travling at 400+ miles per hour.

There are no such examples provided in this crummy article. There's a distinct lack of anything useful or convincing.

Without going very far away from regular old science, it is easy to demonstrate that at bare minimum, a case of fantastic negligence occurred on this day.

Going a wee bit further, it becomes apparent: the 'official story' ignores, lies about or distorts the real story in order to achieve is official verdict on what happened that day.

As usual, plausible deniability is what was planned for, and it was achieved. I don't mean to say I know what happened or how it happened, just that the end result is the people in charge are all shrugging and ignoring, and eventually the problem will just go away.

So what is wikipedia doing posting such a bland and crappy version of 'the 911 conspiracy'? Way to be a bunch of pussies, wikipedia. That article reads like some reader's digest fluff piece. I expect far better than that from wikipedia.