Is BR/cake stop/bottom bracket becoming surreal

Frank the tank

Don't get me wrong I enjoy it on here but lately some of the threads have been taking some right weird twists.

Thatchers dead morphed into a debate on whether Hitler was evil, a bit naughty or actually not all bad. A thread about a sh1tbag family of scousers has turned into a debate on the royal family and the monarchy.

I LOVE IT.

GiantMike

Taupe

CambsNewbie

Don't forget the obligatory have a go at VTech detour each thread goes through!

Giraffoto

GiantMike wrote:

Taupe

Don't get me started on taupe - it's proof that male and female eyes work differently. We already have the perfectly reasonable term "nondescript muddy brownish" for this, why make up a name for a range of colours that is just a state of not being any proper colour? And "taupe" is French for "mole". I've seen moles, they're black as the ace of spades, not bl00dy taupe.

CHRISNOIR

There was a lovely one in 'General'* where a bloke asked if Campagnolo Zondas were a good wheel upgrade and it soon morphed into a debate on advanced physics...

* I rarely go in there but it can be absolutely batsh*t.

thegreatdivide

Internet forums innit.

pliptrot

CambsNewbie wrote:

Don't forget the obligatory have a go at VTech detour each thread goes through!

Well, if you espouse those views.........

team47b

Giraffoto wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Taupe

Don't get me started on taupe - it's proof that male and female eyes work differently. We already have the perfectly reasonable term "nondescript muddy brownish" for this, why make up a name for a range of colours that is just a state of not being any proper colour? And "taupe" is French for "mole". I've seen moles, they're black as the ace of spades, not bl00dy taupe.

In my specialist field of cognative theories of peception in the visible spectrum, men require slightly longer wavelengths to women in order to experience the same hue.

Since longer wavelengths are 'warmer' colors, an orange, for example, may appear redder to a man than to a woman. Likewise, the grass is almost always greener to women than to men, to whom verdant objects appear a bit yellower.

Hitler, Mocking the dead, scousers, religious sins, vtech, andallotherbollix should cover it:D

morstar

Giraffoto wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Taupe

Don't get me started on taupe - it's proof that male and female eyes work differently. We already have the perfectly reasonable term "nondescript muddy brownish" for this, why make up a name for a range of colours that is just a state of not being any proper colour? And "taupe" is French for "mole". I've seen moles, they're black as the ace of spades, not bl00dy taupe.

Love it.

About 12 years ago, I was a buyer for an outdoor retail store when travel clothing was the growth market. It was amazing how many different names were generated for varying degrees of 'nondescript muddy brownish'.

The most amazing thing of all was how the Columbia clothing brand managed to have a catalogue literally as thick as a phone book filled almost exclusively with variations on checked shirts and taupe trousers.

simonhead

http://jimllpaintit.bigcartel.com/product/the-storming-of-hitler-s-bunker-canvas-box-print

Surrealism of sorts

VTech

On the whole its a great place, ive met several great people from here and im sure in real life there probably isnt any bad people here, just keyboard warriors and the odd lemming.

I am sure that on the hole there are more people who prefer to argue with me (hence the hitler, thatcher, royal threads) rather than those that truly think that what they have written is correct.

Monkeypump

BR is very much like telly these days - lots of content, most of it absolute sh*te with the occasional surprising gem.

VTech is certainly on the positive side of that equation, despite my early insults.

sungod

Frank the tank

Monkeypump wrote:

BR is very much like telly these days - lots of content, most of it absolute sh*te with the occasional surprising gem.

VTech is certainly on the positive side of that equation, despite my early insults.

Still a good place to come and have a "rattle" though.

alihisgreat

Frank the tank wrote:

Don't get me wrong I enjoy it on here but lately some of the threads have been taking some right weird twists.

Thatchers dead morphed into a debate on whether Hitler was evil, a bit naughty or actually not all bad. A thread about a sh1tbag family of scousers has turned into a debate on the royal family and the monarchy.

I LOVE IT.

Its just Goodwin's law.

MattC59

I like turtles.

ballysmate

MattC59 wrote:

I like turtles.

All you young 'uns,- ask yer mam who she was.

pinno

team47b wrote:

In my specialist field of cognative theories of peception in the visible spectrum, men require slightly longer wavelengths to women in order to experience the same hue.

Since longer wavelengths are 'warmer' colors, an orange, for example, may appear redder to a man than to a woman. Likewise, the grass is almost always greener to women than to men, to whom verdant objects appear a bit yellower.

Hitler, Mocking the dead, scousers, religious sins, vtech, andallotherbollix should cover it:D

Philosophical you are team47b.

True to the title of this thread:

As real proof of this male/female divide, when I say that something is pink, my OH sometimes corrects me and says 'No, that it is not pink it's cerise', which is - "...a deep reddish pink..." by all accounts it's f*cking pink.

My immediate response to her contradiction is "I am never going shopping with you again, your bum will look huge in that, you don't suit pink anyway. I am going out on my bike". The day she agrees with me is the day I will spend less time on my bike. Thats why we (men and women) cannot possibly exist on the same wavelength, it would be catastrophic.
I also do not think that if the wavelengths matched, I would spend less time on my bike and more time in bed because women find this uncanny, inexplicable method of piddling on your chips.

Cleat Eastwood

team47b wrote:

Likewise, the grass is almost always greener to women than to men, to whom verdant objects appear a bit yellower.

That would explain why your courgettes are always raw.

And no theory on colour can explain why scouse girls are orange....at birth

Giraffoto

pinarello001 wrote:

team47b wrote:

In my specialist field of cognative theories of peception in the visible spectrum, men require slightly longer wavelengths to women in order to experience the same hue.

Since longer wavelengths are 'warmer' colors, an orange, for example, may appear redder to a man than to a woman. Likewise, the grass is almost always greener to women than to men, to whom verdant objects appear a bit yellower.

Hitler, Mocking the dead, scousers, religious sins, vtech, andallotherbollix should cover it:D

Philosophical you are team47b.

True to the title of this thread:

As real proof of this male/female divide, when I say that something is pink, my OH sometimes corrects me and says 'No, that it is not pink it's cerise', which is - "...a deep reddish pink..." by all accounts it's f*cking pink.

My immediate response to her contradiction is "I am never going shopping with you again, your bum will look huge in that, you don't suit pink anyway. I am going out on my bike". The day she agrees with me is the day I will spend less time on my bike. Thats why we (men and women) cannot possibly exist on the same wavelength, it would be catastrophic.
I also do not think that if the wavelengths matched, I would spend less time on my bike and more time in bed because women find this uncanny, inexplicable method of piddling on your chips.

And then there's the concept that "black is slimming" . . .
It doesn't work once you know about it. You see someone wearing all black stuff, you realise they're not a goth, you notice it doesn't suit them, you ask yourself why, you remember it's meant to make them look slimmer, you realize they're a stealth chubber. And you might not have noticed them if they'd worn, say, taupe.

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

On the whole its a great place, ive met several great people from here and im sure in real life there probably isnt any bad people here, just keyboard warriors and the odd lemming.

I am sure that on the hole there are more people who prefer to argue with me (hence the hitler, thatcher, royal threads) rather than those that truly think that what they have written is correct.

To be fair, I think most are correct and are just disagreeing with you.

VTech

seanoconn wrote:

VTech wrote:

On the whole its a great place, ive met several great people from here and im sure in real life there probably isnt any bad people here, just keyboard warriors and the odd lemming.

I am sure that on the hole there are more people who prefer to argue with me (hence the hitler, thatcher, royal threads) rather than those that truly think that what they have written is correct.

To be fair, I think most are correct and are just disagreeing with you.

You are indeed correct, it is possible that I am wrong, together with the majority on the forum and there are a few, you included that are right.

That many people are born evil
That is is right or justified that people should sing, dance and throw a party when a senile old lady dies.
That the royal family dont make money for the UK economy.
That even evil people never do a jot of good.

As ive said, I may be wrong but just like those that believe in a god or life after death without proof, I chose to believe that all people are born good, that good can sometimes come from evil, that its wrong to celebrate in anger the death of anyone and that the royal family do us proud.

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

VTech wrote:

On the whole its a great place, ive met several great people from here and im sure in real life there probably isnt any bad people here, just keyboard warriors and the odd lemming.

I am sure that on the hole there are more people who prefer to argue with me (hence the hitler, thatcher, royal threads) rather than those that truly think that what they have written is correct.

To be fair, I think most are correct and are just disagreeing with you.

You are indeed correct, it is possible that I am wrong, together with the majority on the forum and there are a few, you included that are right.

That many people are born evil
That is is right or justified that people should sing, dance and throw a party when a senile old lady dies.
That the royal family dont make money for the UK economy.
That even evil people never do a jot of good.

As ive said, I may be wrong but just like those that believe in a god or life after death without proof, I chose to believe that all people are born good, that good can sometimes come from evil, that its wrong to celebrate in anger the death of anyone and that the royal family do us proud.

Morning Vtech

VTech

Morning to you too sir

See, we can get on you know

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

Morning to you too sir

See, we can get on you know

Never in doubt.

team47b

Is this a romance budding

seanoconn

team47b wrote:

Is this a romance budding

Don't push it

VTech

Im like marmite so there is a chance

RDW

pinno

cornerblock

Nah it's getting silly now. We need to remember first and foremost this is a cycling forum.