Posted by Turby on August 23, 2008, 2:22 pm
wrote:
>> ========================================
>>> Well then, educati me. Why do African (and afro American) bones differ
>>> from Euro bones enough that a trained examiner can tell the difference.
>>
>> Educate yourself. Google is your friend.
>>
>> http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/skeleton.pdf
>>
>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047
>>
>> Were you really thinking that racial distinction of human bones,
>> at least as far as it can be done, would have to depend solely
>> on gross structural distinctions such as would come from "extra"
>> muscles?
>>
>Thanks, but these weren't particularly helpful since Aussi aboriginies are
>little related to Africans. A forensic MD I knew said that he could tell
>the race of most skeltons by the shape of some bones noting that Radius and
>Ulna were curved differently in Africans and Euros. I have no reason to
>doubt that. And if bones are different it seems at least possible that
>muscles are too.
>Watch the Olympics. Note the different shapes of muscular African, Euro and
>Asian asses.
>Note that I am not making any judgement of good or better, just that
>muscular differences seem to exist, at least to a non-expert.
That's a colossal duh. But it in no way means the number of muscles or
bones are different. I'm 6'5" tall and 230lbs. My father was 5'11" and
170lbs. I think we're probably from the same ethnic group. (Place
sarcasm emoticon here.)
I can easily tell the difference between Eritrean and Ibo or Masai and
Somali, just by looking at their faces. Big deal. Irish may be able to
tell what county someone comes from by facial characteristics. But we
all have the same number of bones and muscles.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Posted by Turby on August 24, 2008, 12:25 pm
wrote:
>Twibil wrote:
>>
>>> Since counter steering instead of leaning is compulsory, go ride a hack
>>> or 3-wheeler. Take it up to about 50 and give it some counter steer ...
>>> then get back to me.
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance. I couldn't have done
>> better.
>>
>> It isn't "countersteering instead of leaning" doofus: countersteering
>> is *how* you make the bike lean and therefore turn.
>>
>> That you cannot grasp this simple fact tells us volumes.
>Nobody could grasp this fact, before Keith Code. It's very not obvious.
Bullcrap.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Posted by Turby on August 24, 2008, 12:34 pm
wrote:
> Body steering is a confirmed myth.
No, it isn't, It is inefficient, but it is NOT a myth.
>> bike. SWMBO finished the last 4 laps of a race at Summit Point with one
>> clip on broken and the other loose dropping from first to third, so
>> counter steering made a difference but was hardly 'compulsory'.
>It is compulsory. There is no other way of steering a bike, period.
Baloney. I can put my throttle lock on, let go of the bars and ride
for miles down a curving freeway. If bodysteering were a myth, the
bike wouldn't stay in the lane.
...
Keith Code may haved proved it to the ignorant, but countersteering
was obvious to many riders long before he showed up. Anyone who
steered by simply pushing the bar with their fingertip knew it.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Posted by Andrzej Rosa on August 24, 2008, 7:14 pm
Turby wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>So, now everything is settled, right?
>
> No. You are flat out wrong. That quote differentiates between
> body-steering and counter-steering and so should you. The results are
> similar, in that the vehicle turns, but the input is entirely
> different, and the act is entirely different, hence the different
> nomenclature. Your claim is akin to "The Earth is round, many fruits
> are round, therefore the Earth is a fruit."
What I said is that in both cases the front wheel is turned away from the
turn, just like you'd do when turning the bars by hand. This is what I'd
call countersteering. You know, turning the bars the wrong way.
It is not obvious that even when using body-steering the same effect takes
place, and I'm pretty glad that I managed to figure it out by myself.
Anyway, that's how you body-steer.
> BTW, since you have ignored my responses in rec.motorcycles, which is
> the only newsgroup to which this thread is relevant, I can only assume
> you are reading this in another group. Considering your ignorance of
> the subject, I'm guessing that group is soc.men.
Yawn.
--
Andrzej Rosa
Posted by Turby on August 24, 2008, 7:58 pm
wrote:
>Turby wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>So, now everything is settled, right?
>>
>> No. You are flat out wrong. That quote differentiates between
>> body-steering and counter-steering and so should you. The results are
>> similar, in that the vehicle turns, but the input is entirely
>> different, and the act is entirely different, hence the different
>> nomenclature. Your claim is akin to "The Earth is round, many fruits
>> are round, therefore the Earth is a fruit."
>What I said is that in both cases the front wheel is turned away from the
>turn, just like you'd do when turning the bars by hand. This is what I'd
>call countersteering. You know, turning the bars the wrong way.
You can call it whatever you like, but if you want to communicate with
the rest of the world, you should use the correct terminology.
>It is not obvious that even when using body-steering the same effect takes
>place, and I'm pretty glad that I managed to figure it out by myself.
>Anyway, that's how you body-steer.
So, how do you think stunters steer when up on one wheel? By turning
the handlebars?
>> BTW, since you have ignored my responses in rec.motorcycles, which is
>> the only newsgroup to which this thread is relevant, I can only assume
>> you are reading this in another group. Considering your ignorance of
>> the subject, I'm guessing that group is soc.men.
>Yawn.
I hit the target, I see.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
XML Sitemap
>>> Well then, educati me. Why do African (and afro American) bones differ
>>> from Euro bones enough that a trained examiner can tell the difference.
>>
>> Educate yourself. Google is your friend.
>>
>> http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/skeleton.pdf
>>
>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047
>>
>> Were you really thinking that racial distinction of human bones,
>> at least as far as it can be done, would have to depend solely
>> on gross structural distinctions such as would come from "extra"
>> muscles?
>>
>Thanks, but these weren't particularly helpful since Aussi aboriginies are
>little related to Africans. A forensic MD I knew said that he could tell
>the race of most skeltons by the shape of some bones noting that Radius and
>Ulna were curved differently in Africans and Euros. I have no reason to
>doubt that. And if bones are different it seems at least possible that
>muscles are too.
>Watch the Olympics. Note the different shapes of muscular African, Euro and
>Asian asses.
>Note that I am not making any judgement of good or better, just that
>muscular differences seem to exist, at least to a non-expert.