# Revealing Bib and Shorts



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

Whenever I ride, I usually wear a cycling bib shorts and jersey. As with any cycling shorts, I don't wear anything underneath it. Needless to say, if one does look it is rather revealing of ones private parts. Normally, it doesn't bother me, as we are all adults and it's nothing really to be ashamed of. I'm not extremely well endowed so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

However, the other day I was riding and stopped to have coffee and there were a few young female teenagers, probably in the 12-13yr ages and couldn't help seeing that they were staring at my junk. I felt a bit embarrassed as, I don't think it's something that should be that revealing especially for such young girls. If it's an adult woman, I wouldn't care, it's likely something they would have seen already.

So anyone else felt this way? I was thinking maybe I should wear a pair of shorts over the bibs...


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Red90 said:


> Whenever I ride, I usually wear a cycling bib shorts and jersey. As with any cycling shorts, I don't wear anything underneath it. Needless to say, if one does look it is rather revealing of ones private parts. Normally, it doesn't bother me, as we are all adults and it's nothing really to be ashamed of. I'm not extremely well endowed so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
> 
> However, the other day I was riding and stopped to have coffee and there were a few young female teenagers, probably in the 12-13yr ages and couldn't help seeing that they were staring at my junk. I felt a bit embarrassed as, I don't think it's something that should be that revealing especially for such young girls. If it's an adult woman, I wouldn't care, it's likely something they would have seen already.
> 
> So anyone else felt this way? I was thinking maybe I should wear a pair of shorts over the bibs...


You should of educated them on the aerodynamics of cycling and it's importance....lol


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Colors other than black definitely emphasise certain features. Like this










Wear black bib shorts maybe?


----------



## robnj (Sep 26, 2013)

Haven't had this occur yet, but I have two young girls and I guess they are used to it by now. After catching me "adjusting" before a ride, I think nothing phases them now.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

I definitely wear black shorts. Seeing that picture, I don't think I will choose any other color.


----------



## mmlee (Apr 15, 2012)

My 12yr old daughter always runs away from me yelling at me to put on some clothes. I always threaten her that if she ever gets in trouble at school that I'll show on my bike with the full kit on. Needless to say she's an "A" student. :blush2:


----------



## dougclaysmith (Oct 17, 2009)

Lets just say its a girl teenager thing




dougclaysmith said:


> I have a kit that I will never wear again.
> 
> It's has a little too much white in the front of the bibs. (get what I’m saying?) I got the most disgusting barf-face look from my 15 year old daughter as I passed her on the way out to the garage for a ride.
> 
> Bibs needs to be black, I think that is one of the rules.


----------



## Marlin (Oct 18, 2005)

I have a friend who started riding 3 or 4 years ago. His kids bought him a pair of shorts for a birthday present. The first time he put them on to ride, his wife refused to let him out of the house. But she has since relented, and he wears them regularly. I guess it just took a little time for her to get used to them.


----------



## dougclaysmith (Oct 17, 2009)

bikerjulio said:


> Colors other than black definitely emphasise certain features. Like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good lord, It looks like a penis line up. It's border line porn. 

Ok, that does it, I just showed my wife, she says I look like that in my red bibs. They're going in the trash.


----------



## bigdog2old (Oct 21, 2013)

*Buon giorno ciclisti !!*



dougclaysmith said:


> Good lord, It looks like a penis line up. It's border line porn.
> 
> Ok, that does it, I just showed my wife, she says I look like that in my red bibs. They're going in the trash.


Leave it to Polska to use a limp phallic symbol on their uniforms or am I just imagining it ?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Keoki said:


> You *should of* educated them on the aerodynamics of cycling and *it's* importance....lol


Time for the "grammar police" again. Look at that...how does that make sense? What you're trying to do is make a contraction of "should have". That will involve an apostrophe, you know, the ' you used incorrectly 9 words further along. So the contraction looks like this: *should've*. "It's" is of course a contraction of "it is", or even "it has", it's (note correct usage) not a possessive.

fine, it's gone.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

mmlee said:


> My 12yr old daughter always runs away from me yelling at me to put on some clothes. I always threaten her that if she ever gets in trouble at school that I'll show on my bike with the full kit on. Needless to say she's an "A" student. :blush2:



I don't have any kids, so I'm not so sure what I would do. If I had a young daughter and there were a bunch of cyclist with their genitals bulging out there... would I tell the girls not to look or tell the cyclist to be more discrete. I'm not sure.

As a cyclist, I don't want any of the parents to be angry as it almost seems like I'm exposing myself to a young girl. It was just an awkward feeling when I saw them staring at me...


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

cxwrench said:


> Time for the
> View attachment 288041
> again. Look at that...how does that make sense? What you're trying to do is make a contraction of "should have". That will involve an apostrophe, you know, the ' you used incorrectly 9 words further along. So the contraction looks like this: *should've*. "It's" is of course a contraction of "it is", or even "it has", it's (note correct usage) not a possessive.


Using that image and the word "Nazi" to point out grammar issues is probably offensive to many. The only time the word "Nazi" should be used is when writing or talking about the real thing. Images similar to the swastika should never be used.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Tschai said:


> Using that image and the word "Nazi" to point out grammar issues is probably offensive to many. The only time the word "Nazi" should be used is when writing or talking about the real thing. Images similar to the swastika should never be used.


Agreed. Now, please edit it from your quote.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

tihsepa said:


> Agreed. Now, please edit it from your quote.


My use is appropriate. I'm not sure your comment is.


----------



## dougclaysmith (Oct 17, 2009)

Tschai said:


> Using that image and the word "Nazi" to point out grammar issues is probably offensive to many. The only time the word "Nazi" should be used is when writing or talking about the real thing. Images similar to the swastika should never be used.


No soup for you!


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

Red90 said:


> [...] Needless to say, if one does look it is rather revealing of ones private parts. [...] I'm not extremely well endowed so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. [...]


That sounds like contradictory sentences. Normal cycling shorts usually have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts of any male individual, with the exception of those "extremely well endowed" ones. 

Do your shorts/bibs have chamois? And if they do, are they properly sized?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

AndreyT said:


> Normal cycling shorts usually have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts of any male individual


Are you sure about that? My observation would be that approximately 95% of bike shorts do NOT have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Red90 said:


> Needless to say, if one does look it is rather revealing of ones private parts.


 Why is that "needless to say"? As others have remarked, you won't be able to discern much detail of my privates in black bibs. Unless you really, really want to...



robnj said:


> After catching me "adjusting" before a ride, I think nothing phases them now.


 You mean "nothing *fazes* them now", right? With greetings from the spelling police.



cxwrench said:


> Time for the "grammar police" again. Look at that...how does that make sense? What you're trying to do is make a contraction of "should have". That will involve an apostrophe, you know, the ' you used incorrectly 9 words further along. So the contraction looks like this: *should've*. "It's" is of course a contraction of "it is", or even "it has", it's (note correct usage) not a possessive.


 Love you, man...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Kerry Irons said:


> Are you sure about that? My observation would be that approximately 95% of bike shorts do NOT have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts.


I guess it all depends. My observation is that 100% of my bike shorts DO have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure mine. :blush2:


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I catch women staring at my junk all the time. Age doesn't seem to matter. I just smile at them and say, "take it all in, honey, this is how a man's supposed to look."


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> I catch women staring at my junk all the time. Age doesn't seem to matter. I just smile at them and say, "take it all in, honey, this is how a man's supposed to look."


 Ooh, what a stud... As an aside, I find the designation "junk" for a man's private parts one of the most stupid and demeaning widely used neologisms I've come across in decades. The moron who came up with this idiocy should be taken out and shot. I don't know about you, but I am equipped with a penis and a scrotum holding a pair of testicles. There's no junk on me anywhere. Glad I got this one off my chest...


----------



## Randy99CL (Mar 27, 2013)

Creakyknees said:


> I catch women staring at my junk all the time.


Women never get to see my junk...because it's all hidden behind the rolled-up sock.


----------



## drussell (Aug 6, 2010)

Ok, who left the gates to The Lounge open? 

Everyone back inside....


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

It's the rider's who wear overly worn shorts/bibs that have only a thin layer of lycra left that bother me.


----------



## Slowhead (Nov 29, 2011)

Randy99CL said:


> Women never get to see my junk...because it's all hidden behind the rolled-up sock.


I put some rep on that


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

MikeBiker said:


> It's the rider's who wear overly worn shorts/bibs that have only a thin layer of lycra left that bother me.


 You mean "the riders" (without the spurious apostrophe), right? Anyway, it depends; if the rider's an attractive female, I may not feel bothered as much, although I may bother... Unfortunately, those females usually pay more attention to what they're wearing.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Slowhead said:


> I put some rep on that


 On his "junk"???


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

AndreyT said:


> That sounds like contradictory sentences. Normal cycling shorts usually have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts of any male individual, with the exception of those "extremely well endowed" ones.
> 
> Do your shorts/bibs have chamois? And if they do, are they properly sized?


My bib shorts do have chamois on them and they do their job at cushioning my contact points. However, it is still visible like the picture of the posted group of cyclist. I think for most men this would be a bit of an issue.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It's time for new bibs when the guy riding behind you yells....."Hey asshat, it's time for some new bibs.....I need a change of scenery".

Those kind of bibs work best on those solo trainer workouts.
.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

Never really had a problem here. All of my bibs have a chamois that extend sufficiently far upward so I can hide everything behind it.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Pirx said:


> You mean "the riders" (without the spurious apostrophe), right? Anyway, it depends; if the rider's an attractive female, I may not feel bothered as much, although I may bother... Unfortunately, those females usually pay more attention to what they're wearing.


Awesome, I'm so glad you feel my pain! :thumbsup:


----------



## Soaring Vulture (Jun 25, 2013)

AndreyT said:


> That sounds like contradictory sentences. Normal cycling shorts usually have enough chamois to sufficiently obscure the private parts of any male individual, with the exception of those "extremely well endowed" ones.
> 
> Do your shorts/bibs have chamois? And if they do, are they properly sized?


I am, as far as I can tell, an ordinary man. And none of my cycling pants have padding that goes so far up that it covers my private parts; anytime everything is down in the chamois, I have to stop and rearrange it before stuff gets damaged.

It's just body parts; no reason for anyone to freak out.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

RaptorTC said:


> Never really had a problem here. All of my bibs have a chamois that extend sufficiently far upward so I can hide everything behind it.


This is what I look for when I buy bibs. All the padding in my shorts come up far enough to cover up the junk.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Red90 said:


> However, the other day I was riding and stopped to have coffee and there were a few young female teenagers, probably in the 12-13yr ages and couldn't help seeing that they were staring at my junk. I felt a bit embarrassed as, I don't think it's something that should be that revealing especially for such young girls. If it's an adult woman, I wouldn't care, it's likely something they would have seen already.
> 
> So anyone else felt this way? I was thinking maybe I should wear a pair of shorts over the bibs...


Sometimes when I'm walking out of the courtyard to start riding my neighbors' grand daughters are visiting, so if I notice them ogling I just carry my helmet to block the view. Grown women I don't care.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

You need to do a bit more international traveling, hit the beaches/pools.

As to the young girls at the coffee shop, as they were at a shop I'll assume they have cash to spend, take that a step further they most likely all have smart phones and internet connections, I'm pretty sure they've seen it all (and more). They just lack manners, this may come with age.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Bill2 said:


> Sometimes when I'm walking out of the courtyard to start riding my neighbors' grand daughters are visiting, so if I notice them ogling I just carry my helmet to block the view. Grown women I don't care.


 Stop being such a sissie. Remember, there were times when men were men, proudly strutting their stuff (and more), accentuated by codpieces:


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's time for new bibs when the guy riding behind you yells....."Hey asshat, it's time for some new bibs.....I need a change of scenery".
> 
> Those kind of bibs work best on those solo trainer workouts.
> .


Exactly. Why I have trainer only shorts now. I find better shorts have thicker lycra.


----------



## davcruz (Oct 9, 2007)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> It's time for new bibs when the guy riding behind you yells....."Hey asshat, it's time for some new bibs.....I need a change of scenery".
> 
> Those kind of bibs work best on those solo trainer workouts.
> .


Very true! I could care less about the "junk" outline (for Pirx), it's the actual crack shot when the sun is in the right spot that gets me! Get some new shorts!


----------



## cmtbiz (Jan 8, 2013)

OP.. like everyone's saying.. wear "black" or you can always pick up a pair of "thong" so that it covers your part. Then it will not be so revealing. 
Imagine those POLSKA folks.. if they bump into some hot chicks.. those sticks gonna grow even bigger!! :hand: If that happens.. it called Indecent Exposure!!


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

When the wimmenz start staring at your 'unmentionables', just say loudly "Hey my eyes are up here!", then harumph and mutter in a stage whisper "Stupid perverts". That will take care of 98% of spectators. For the other 2%, charge them a dollar and invite them to see you dance on the main stage, that should get a laugh out of them and if you're lucky.....a phone number:smilewinkgrin:.


----------



## MercRidnMike (Dec 19, 2006)

If you want to be modest, black padded bibs will be the best option. If you want to "show off" the junk, unpadded shorts (esp. worn ones) with color (a la the Polish team in the earlier photo) is the way to leave nothing to the imagination.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

junior1210 said:


> When the wimmenz start staring at your 'unmentionables', just say loudly "Hey my eyes are up here!", then harumph and mutter in a stage whisper "Stupid perverts". That will take care of 98% of spectators. For the other 2%, charge them a dollar and invite them to see you dance on the main stage, that should get a laugh out of them and if you're lucky.....a phone number:smilewinkgrin:.



LOL I wish I could get that kind of attention!!! As I said, grown women... that's not an issue as I'm sure they have seen it before and I'm not ashamed in anyway. I just wasn't so sure with young girls whether or not it was something we should be a bit more discrete about. 

Maybe it's just our culture in north america, but we tend to shield our young ones from anything of the sexual nature. I'm sure some parents wouldn't think much of it, but I'm sure there are others that would judge it as indecent exposure. I've never been told by anyone that it's inappropriate but I can see it being an issue with some people.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Red90 said:


> I've never been told by anyone that it's inappropriate but I can see it being an issue with some people.


Can you imagine if the mothers of these young girls overhears them chatting that they saw Mr. Red90's penis not realizing they saw an outline through your bike shorts? . 

I've never noticed any shorts that show the outline of penises like in the pic posted, so there must be a difference in how far up the chamois goes. Maybe that's something you can look for in future shorts????


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

love4himies said:


> I've never noticed any shorts that show the outline of penises like in the pic posted, so there must be a difference in how far up the chamois goes. Maybe that's something you can look for in future shorts????


 Well, obviously, it also makes a difference how you are carrying your penis. Size matters, too. Do we really need to go into these details? Oh, and the bibs of the guys in the picture do not show any chamois at all, at least as far as one can tell. I wonder what brand those were, but I have never seen bibs with so little chamois for sale.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

Red90 said:


> So anyone else felt this way? I was thinking maybe I should wear a pair of shorts over the bibs...


This bit of getting so uptight about this sort of thing is mostly just in the U.S. thing. Maybe a bit in the U.K. 

The girls won't be getting off on seeing your penis and after idle curiosity will simply ignore it so I wouldn't worry about it. Seeing nude people of every age, shape, and gender on the beach, around pools, and elsewhere didn't hurt my kids nor any of the millions of others outside the over-uptight U.S.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> Time for the "grammar police" again. Look at that...how does that make sense? What you're trying to do is make a contraction of "should have". That will involve an apostrophe, you know, the ' you used incorrectly 9 words further along. So the contraction looks like this: *should've*. "It's" is of course a contraction of "it is", or even "it has", it's (note correct usage) not a possessive.
> 
> fine, it's gone.



+1. Well done.

btw, I spend at least 95% of the time that I wear cycling shorts hanging over the handlebars pedaling like a madman. The other 5% is waiting for lights to change and walking to/from my bike. I tend not to pose in front of young ladies or prance around so no one but my family has ever had the opportunity to complain. At lights people are too intent wishing they owned my bike to care about my knob.


----------



## cmtbiz (Jan 8, 2013)

I wanted to add one more thing... 

You should ignore that kind of mentality. As long as you are not naked riding your bike, there's nothing to be ashamed of, if that thing of yours is bulging. 

I am sure that these other people would understand it completely and that's nature and that's how it is.. Everyone has a father or brother (male) in their families. 

You should only worry if you don't have that junk unless you are a woman.:blush2:


----------



## Swen6 (Feb 6, 2013)

bikerjulio said:


> Colors other than black definitely emphasise certain features. Like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One, the first post made me laugh, sorry was this in the school playground? Your an adult i assume, would you not just, excuse the pun, rise above it?

....and the pic (if genuine) seriously, how have none of them felt the need to adjust themselves and 'tuck in' just looks uncomfortable.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> Time for the "grammar police" again. Look at that...how does that make sense? What you're trying to do is make a contraction of "should have". That will involve an apostrophe, you know, the ' you used incorrectly 9 words further along. So the contraction looks like this: *should've*. "It's" is of course a contraction of "it is", or even "it has", it's (note correct usage) not a possessive.
> 
> fine, it's gone.





DaveWC said:


> +1. Well done.


Damn, got caught.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Assos. They've got big peenie pads.


----------



## Soaring Vulture (Jun 25, 2013)

Terex said:


> Assos. They've got big peenie pads.


No they don't. They have a "Kuku Penthouse". What kind of drugs do they use in Switzerland?


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Ok, but what about camel-toe. Should young impressionable lads be subjected to the sight of such horror?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

I missthe podium girls forum.


----------



## mtor (Mar 1, 2007)

bikerjulio said:


> Colors other than black definitely emphasise certain features. Like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


SMH definitely only wearing black from now on


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Using that image and the word "Nazi" to point out grammar issues is probably offensive to many. The only time the word "Nazi" should be used is when writing or talking about the real thing. Images similar to the swastika should never be used.


I'm not trying to be a jerk here...but are you really that sensitive to a word? The definition of "Nazi" has changed and worked its way into our verbal culture...the word is often used to describe anyone being oppressive or harsh. If you really cannot discern the difference in his context vs the literal oppressive political party of the mid 1900's I feel sorry for you...life outside a forum must me rough...



MikeBiker said:


> It's the rider's who wear overly worn shorts/bibs that have only a thin layer of lycra left that bother me.


Yikes...

I went on a ride with a "robust" gentleman last summer...dude had some seriously worn out kit. He took the lead and I could see his ass crack wight through his bibs. I found it more humorous than anything but the second you mentioned it, that image popped into my head.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Typetwelve said:


> I went on a ride with a "robust" gentleman last summer...dude had some seriously worn out kit. He took the lead and I could see his ass crack wight through his bibs. I found it more humorous than anything but the second you mentioned it, that image popped into my head.



And you just had to give us that image as well?! Well thanks a bunch!:incazzato: I'm gonna stare at the pic of the wimmenz to rehab.rrr:


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

junior1210 said:


> And you just had to give us that image as well?! Well thanks a bunch!:incazzato: I'm gonna stare at the pic of the wimmenz to rehab.rrr:


You won't see me complaining about the podium girl shot one bit...wow...


----------



## Swen6 (Feb 6, 2013)

Bill2 said:


> Ok, but what about camel-toe. Should young impressionable lads be subjected to the sight of such horror?
> View attachment 288142


It wouldn't be easy, but I'm sure I could learn to live with seeing images like this at the local stop.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Bill2 said:


> Ok, but what about camel-toe. Should young impressionable lads be subjected to the sight of such horror?
> View attachment 288142


I've been staring at this pic for 3 hours and 12 minutes now...
What event was that?


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

"Something Wonderful" - CPT. Dave Bowman


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Typetwelve said:


> I'm not trying to be a jerk here...but are you really that sensitive to a word? The definition of "Nazi" has changed and worked its way into our verbal culture...the word is often used to describe anyone being oppressive or harsh. If you really cannot discern the difference in his context vs the literal oppressive political party of the mid 1900's I feel sorry for you...life outside a forum must me rough...


Oh my. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Of course I can easily discern the different uses, but that is entirely irrelevant. Grammar Nazi, as well as other modern uses of the word, are tasteless, insensitive, and historically inaccurate. Such use is not only deeply offensive to Jews, but also to all persons who believe it is wrong to make inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust and to use terminology such as “Nazi” to trivialize aspects of popular culture. The casual use of the word “Nazi” diminishes, dishonors, and demeans Holocaust survivors and the millions who perished at the hands of the murderous Nazi regime, including American, British, Russian, and French soldiers and those civilians in the Underground who died defeating Nazi Germany, as well as the families and descendants of these groups.
The frivolous use of the word “Nazi” to bash any individual or organization in public discourse is simply wrong. Adding the Grammar Nazi symbol 100% underscores my point. Not only is the wrong use of the word becoming acceptable, people are now using symbols that are strikingly similar to the swastika. This is wrong.

PS: Your nice little passive aggressive stab at me - "I feel sorry for you....blah, blah, blah..." has done nothing other than diminish your credibility. Thanks for the pointless insult.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Soaring Vulture said:


> No they don't. They have a "Kuku Penthouse". What kind of drugs do they use in Switzerland?


Apparently the blue ones.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Oh my. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Of course I can easily discern the different uses, but that is entirely irrelevant. Grammar Nazi, as well as other modern uses of the word, are tasteless, insensitive, and historically inaccurate. Such use is not only deeply offensive to Jews, but also to all persons who believe it is wrong to make inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust and to use terminology such as “Nazi” to trivialize aspects of popular culture. The casual use of the word “Nazi” diminishes, dishonors, and demeans Holocaust survivors and the millions who perished at the hands of the murderous Nazi regime, including American, British, Russian, and French soldiers and those civilians in the Underground who died defeating Nazi Germany, as well as the families and descendants of these groups.
> The frivolous use of the word “Nazi” to bash any individual or organization in public discourse is simply wrong. Adding the Grammar Nazi symbol 100% underscores my point. Not only is the wrong use of the word becoming acceptable, people are now using symbols that are strikingly similar to the swastika. This is wrong.
> 
> PS: Your nice little passive aggressive stab at me - "I feel sorry for you....blah, blah, blah..." has done nothing other than diminish your credibility. Thanks for the pointless insult.


Passive aggressive?

How's this for "passive"

If you truly believe the tripe you just posted, that makes you an overly sensitive dolt. If you are so sensitive to the use of a word as to be offended by such a thing, you much be insanely thin-skinned. I pity the people that are forced to deal with you and people like you in the real world. I bet you are a joy to work with or be around...I can only begin to imagine the tongues that are bit in your presence as not to "offend" your sensitivity to absurd sayings.

People like you that are obsessed with "political correctness" are literally what is ripping this nation in two...congrats for being so damn rigid and absurd in how you view the use of the English langue *golf clap*...


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

All these years I didn't know Seinfeld was offensive. He's Jewish btw. So is Alexander & Louis-Dreyfus.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

This is why i only wear black bibs. I try to keep my junk behind the chamois when on and off the bike, but there just isn't enough room. I was definitely sensitive to wearing the tights in public when I first started riding, but got over it pretty quick. I can't stop people from looking, so why worry about it?




Tschai said:


> Oh my. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Of course I can easily discern the different uses, but that is entirely irrelevant. Grammar Nazi, as well as other modern uses of the word, are tasteless, insensitive, and historically inaccurate. Such use is not only deeply offensive to Jews, but also to all persons who believe it is wrong to make inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust and to use terminology such as “Nazi” to trivialize aspects of popular culture. The casual use of the word “Nazi” diminishes, dishonors, and demeans Holocaust survivors and the millions who perished at the hands of the murderous Nazi regime, including American, British, Russian, and French soldiers and those civilians in the Underground who died defeating Nazi Germany, as well as the families and descendants of these groups.
> The frivolous use of the word “Nazi” to bash any individual or organization in public discourse is simply wrong. Adding the Grammar Nazi symbol 100% underscores my point. Not only is the wrong use of the word becoming acceptable, people are now using symbols that are strikingly similar to the swastika. This is wrong.


Do you own a bar in northern VA? This is almost a word for word response that my fiance got on Yelp for referencing an 'occupancy nazi' when giving a local bar a bad review. Instead of apologizing for his business's bad service, he went on a rant about how classless she was for saying Nazi. Again, you should all probably take it up with Seinfeld for starting that whole trend...


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> All these years I didn't know Seinfeld was offensive. He's Jewish btw. So is Alexander & Louis-Dreyfus.


Much of the cast and writers are Jewish...

The difference between all of them and our thin skinned cycling brother here is that they all seem to understand the difference between the literal and non-literal use of a word.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Tschai said:


> Oh my. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Of course I can easily discern the different uses, but that is entirely irrelevant. Grammar Nazi, as well as other modern uses of the word, are tasteless, insensitive, and historically inaccurate. Such use is not only deeply offensive to Jews, but also to all persons who believe it is wrong to make inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust and to use terminology such as “Nazi” to trivialize aspects of popular culture. The casual use of the word “Nazi” diminishes, dishonors, and demeans Holocaust survivors and the millions who perished at the hands of the murderous Nazi regime, including American, British, Russian, and French soldiers and those civilians in the Underground who died defeating Nazi Germany, as well as the families and descendants of these groups.
> The frivolous use of the word “Nazi” to bash any individual or organization in public discourse is simply wrong. Adding the Grammar Nazi symbol 100% underscores my point. Not only is the wrong use of the word becoming acceptable, people are now using symbols that are strikingly similar to the swastika. This is wrong.
> 
> PS: Your nice little passive aggressive stab at me - "I feel sorry for you....blah, blah, blah..." has done nothing other than diminish your credibility. Thanks for the pointless insult.


Jesus...this makes we want go back and put it back in the post. People like you are a big problem. The overly vocal and overly sensitive minority.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

mtor said:


> SMH definitely only wearing black from now on


Black is definitely the best choice but I had no idea shorts/bibs wore down and became more revealing over time. Like this hobby isn't expensive enough...

The most revealing conditions IME are when the sun is low to the horizon and behind you. It's not always a bad thing though, especially when you pass a female jogger running along in lycra shorts just before sunset...Let's just say it doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Typetwelve said:


> Passive aggressive?
> 
> How's this for "passive"
> 
> ...


This is absurd. You clearly have anger issues. And, don't assume anything about me. I am far from thin skinned, I am generally easy going and a pleasure to work with and I am not even remotely obsessed with political correctness. You may think I am a fool, but if you really think people obsessed with political correctness are ripping this nation in two, you live in a fantasy world.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> All these years I didn't know Seinfeld was offensive. He's Jewish btw. So is Alexander & Louis-Dreyfus.


Jews can't be offensive. Ha! Check out the ADL's position on the Soup Nazi. Indeed, the Soup Nazi may be the biggest reason why the word is now so trivialized that it has made its way into everyday speech. 

Moreover, while earning my degree in Judaic Studies, I studied under enough Holocaust survivors to learn how offensive the word can be. I'll take their opinion over a bunch of yahoos that have no idea what they are talking about. There simply is no reason to use the word in popular culture. Using it next to a symbol that looks like a swastika is messed up.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Typetwelve said:


> Much of the cast and writers are Jewish...
> 
> The difference between all of them and our thin skinned cycling brother here is that they all seem to understand the difference between the literal and non-literal use of a word.


Seinfeld is not the appropriate authority as to whether the term is offensive. Many Jewish people find the "Soup Nazi" to be extremely offensive. Shall we check with the ADL? How about the remaining Holocaust survivors and their families?

It's offensive. Seinfeld is wrong. If forced to choose between Seinfeld and the remaining Holocaust survivors, the only choice is the survivors. 

Finally, as stated in another post. The fact that several of you have used the Soup Nazi example to argue your point that I am a thin skinned, politically correct loser UNDERSCORES how inappropriate and damaging that episode was. Because you think that the Soup Nazi was funny and written by Jews, you also now think the word is not offensive.

It's so funny. I calmly and politely point out that certain content of a post may be offensive and that the word Nazi should not be trivialized and I am immediately personally attacked by a very angry mob that blame political correctness for their unhappiness.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Derailed thread. Let me fix:

View attachment 288170


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Jews can't be offensive. Ha! Check out the ADL's position on the Soup Nazi.


Oh please. Should I also check out the ADL's position on Rupert Murdoch or Park 51?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Tschai said:


> Your nice little passive aggressive stab at me - "I feel sorry for you....blah, blah, blah..." has done nothing other than diminish your credibility. Thanks for the pointless insult.


O.k., let me diminish my credibility as well by stating that I, too, feel sorry for you. I could use stronger words, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> Oh please. Should I also check out the ADL's position on Rupert Murdoch or Park 51?


Clearly you like digging your own hole deeper.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Pirx said:


> O.k., let me diminish my credibility as we'll by stating that I, too, feel sorry for you. I could use stronger words, but I'll leave it at that.


No, please use stronger words. These passive aggressive attacks are simply mind blowing. 

You feel sorry for me because of my position on a word and a symbol. Yikes!!!!


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Tschai said:


> No, please use stronger words.


Sorry, troll feeding ended five minutes ago. Come back for the morning feeding.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> Clearly you like digging your own hole deeper.


Not at all. That's a non-answer to a specific question. I gave examples where I feel the ADL was so far on the wrong side that it's not inconceivable to believe that there are other possible examples where their beliefs are flawed. I also don't feel obligated to follow the beliefs of that organization to the letter. I certainly don't plan to give Rupert Murdoch any awards. The fact that we disagree doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

So folks, about them bibs!


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

RaptorTC said:


> So folks, about them bibs!


Could you stop being such a thread-Nazi, please?


----------



## crowaan (Aug 13, 2013)

RaptorTC said:


> So folks, about them bibs!


They're expensive so sometimes you just have to buy what you can afford no matter how they make your genitals look, or what your sponsors/national organization give you to wear.

P.S.: The actual topic is much more interesting than a debate over the proper use of the word Nazi. People will be offended by all sorts of words, like a certain word that is popular in rap music, offends some but fine by others.


----------



## RedViola (Aug 15, 2012)

Some of you seem to be spending a lot of time in bibs yet mysteriously off of the bike. I kit up, head out, ride back; hell, *_I_* don't even see my own cock again until I get home and jump in the shower.

To be fair, I am partial to Giordana chamois bibs, which are comfortable in the extreme and tend to make me look like I have a vagina.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

(see what I did there?)


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 9, 2010)

Repped the crap out of you for that.


----------



## DMP73 (Aug 2, 2012)

Nearly lost my tea over the keyboard...Brilliant! 

3 hours on the bike, and my tortoise head has inverted itself anyways...I pretty much have to play the hand banjo to wake the old fella up.



RedViola said:


> Some of you seem to be spending a lot of time in bibs yet mysteriously off of the bike. I kit up, head out, ride back; hell, *_I_* don't even see my own cock again until I get home and jump in the shower.
> 
> To be fair, I am partial to Giordana chamois bibs, which are comfortable in the extreme and tend to make me look like I have a vagina.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Typetwelve said:


> If you truly believe the tripe you just posted, that makes you an overly sensitive dolt. If you are so sensitive to the use of a word as to be offended by such a thing, you much be insanely thin-skinned. I pity the people that are forced to deal with you and people like you in the real world. I bet you are a joy to work with or be around...I can only begin to imagine the tongues that are bit in your presence as not to "offend" your sensitivity to absurd sayings.
> 
> People like you that are obsessed with "political correctness" are literally what is ripping this nation in two...congrats for being so damn rigid and absurd in how you view the use of the English langue *golf clap*...


This really pisses me off.

Why would you jump on this guy for saying he's offended by something? If he is, he is. Who are you to determine his level of sensitivity is too much without knowing him or the shoes he's walked in? 

Do you really think the majority deciding what's offensive or not to a minority is the way for society to operate? 

That same logic was tossed at blacks in our country when they found the N word offensive. Would you prefer this guy shut and Uncle Tom it rather than being open about being offended. No need to answer, you've already done so. 

The US has made some stride in leading the world out of this antiquated way of thinking but I guess even it's own citizens haven't quite figured out the problems with the offendee deciding what should and should not be offensive to other people.

As for it ripping our nation in two. I'm more that happy to be seperated from people who think they have the right to decide what other people should and should not be offended by without having walked in their shoes.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Jay Strongbow said:


> This really pisses me off.
> 
> Why would you jump on this guy for saying he's offended by something? If he is, he is. Who are you to determine his level of sensitivity is too much without knowing him or the shoes he's walked in?


It's one thing to be offended by something and then to look the other way. It's another to criticize someone for what you feel is offensive and insist that they change their ways to accommodate you. If we compile a list of words that are casually used while ignoring the seriousness of the words or the way others perceive their casual usage I'm sure we'd have quite a list and would spend a lot of time attacking people. For instance, God. Stop using it, it's not correct. It's blasphemous in almost any context. Same goes for Jesus, Christ and all combinations. Don't use rape to describe someone cheating you out of $5 as it demeans actual rape victims. Don't say you were "sold down the river" as it has a context to slaves where this was actually done. There are still people that think "retarded" or "gay" is an acceptable way to refer to something that seems dumb. 

So rather than focusing on the one word "nazi" and the way it ignores the reality of the horror the word should invoke, maybe people should accept that not everyone feels the same way, acts the same way or communicates the same way.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

DaveWC said:


> It's one thing to be offended by something and then to look the other way. It's another to criticize someone for what you feel is offensive and insist that they change their ways to accommodate you. If we compile a list of words that are casually used while ignoring the seriousness of the words or the way others perceive their casual usage I'm sure we'd have quite a list and would spend a lot of time attacking people. For instance, God. Stop using it, it's not correct. It's blasphemous in almost any context. Same goes for Jesus, Christ and all combinations. Don't use rape to describe someone cheating you out of $5 as it demeans actual rape victims. Don't say you were "sold down the river" as it has a context to slaves where this was actually done. There are still people that think "retarded" or "gay" is an acceptable way to refer to something that seems dumb.
> 
> So rather than focusing on the one word "nazi" and the way it ignores the reality of the horror the word should invoke, maybe people should accept that not everyone feels the same way, acts the same way or communicates the same way.


+1 to this. Repped as well.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

junior1210 said:


> +1 to this. Repped as well.


 Same here.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Why would you jump on this guy for saying he's offended by something?


 NO. He did NOT jump on the guy for saying that he is offended by something. He jumped on him, rightly so, for jumping on other people that do not share this guy's sensitivities.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> maybe people should accept that not everyone feels the same way, acts the same way


Exactly. Seems to be double standard on that here.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Tschai said:


> Using that image and the word "Nazi" to point out grammar issues is probably offensive to many. The only time the word "Nazi" should be used is when writing or talking about the real thing. Images similar to the swastika should never be used.


I was going to refer to your post as being a nazi nazi, but I changed my mind.


----------



## raudi (Apr 10, 2013)

DMP73 said:


> Nearly lost my tea over the keyboard...Brilliant!
> 
> 3 hours on the bike, and my tortoise head has inverted itself anyways...*I pretty much have to play the hand banjo to wake the old fella up*.


Serious LOLz there.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Pirx said:


> NO. He did NOT jump on the guy for saying that he is offended by something. He jumped on him, rightly so, for jumping on other people that do not share this guy's sensitivities.


This is wrong. Go read the posts again. The name calling did not start with me. 

It's insane that people are essentially defending a post that, in an effort to point out a grammar mistake, combined the word "Nazi" with a symbol that looked almost exactly like a swastika. Then they ignore the fact that this could be extremely offensive to Holocaust survivors, their families and many others (AGAIN, NOT ONE POST ADDRESSES THOSE THAT MAY BE OFFENDED) and justify their vitriol on the basis that political correctness and oversensitivity is ripping this country apart. Some, such as junior, seem to be saying that any amount of political correctness is abhorrent, regardless of the word at issue. There is no logic to this. Some words and symbols are offensive, others are not. The point is to address each case independently. By junior's logic it would seem nothing should be offensive or inappropriate. We know that is not true.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)




----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> It's insane that people are essentially defending a post that, in an effort to point out a grammar mistake, combined the word "Nazi" with a symbol that looked almost exactly like a swastika. Then they ignore the fact that this could be extremely offensive to Holocaust survivors, their families and many others (AGAIN, NOT ONE POST ADDRESSES THOSE THAT MAY BE OFFENDED) and justify their vitriol on the basis that political correctness...


The image was removed within minutes of being posted at your request. The ensuing discussion is not an argument by the person who posted the image, it's a discussion about whether you were being overly sensitive about the image. It seems that it was not sufficient that the reference be removed, you also had to school other posters about the correctness of your demand and the incorrectness of the image. Had you simply been satisfied that the image was removed and not responded to those that questioned your need to make the demand, all of this would have been avoided. 

Having said that, maybe it's a good idea to check to see if you are as sensitive to the feelings of other people when you post. There was a thread on this board posted by someone with an anxiety disorder that wanted to ride on the sidewalk because of his fears. He was made fun of by many posters for including a irrational fear of preparing grilled cheese sandwiches and there were others saying that this was insensitive. You replied to a poster who said "no one should have to get used to the jokes about an anxiety disorder" with the following:



Tschai said:


> I'm not concerned. Accusing others of being demeaning is more demeaning than making grilled cheese jokes on an internet forum.


This came after your initial comment:


Tschai said:


> The OP can have it only one of two ways. If the OP has a legitimate grilled cheese disorder, they better get used to the jokes, or even better, they better have the ability to laugh at themselves on this one.


So clearly you find it possible to have a sense of humor regarding other people's sensitivities and find humor in demeaning their fears and anxieties. Yet you insist that we tiptoe around your concerns. Could it also be said that accusing others of being insensitive is more insensitive than making jokes about nazis? I doubt you'll agree now that we're discussing your sensitivities.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Exactly. Seems to be double standard on that here.


This is really a case of free speech vs political correctness. Americans are protected by free speech to almost say anything they want and express their opinions. There are different rules depending on the medium that your expressing them in.. i.e. workplace or say this forum which may have some standards on what can or cannot be expressed.

Having the right to free speech also means that there will be people that are offended by what others say, even if it is not intended. As said, not everyone will feel the same about certain things. Some will be offended, others will not. It's not our right to dictate what other people say or how they should feel.

Political correctness just derives from what the public has deemed to be socially acceptable and non offensive to the general public. It doesn't mandate how one must speak or express themselves.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

One last thing to chew on. Many, many Christians feel that God should only be referred to in prayer. Any other reference is blasphemous. Much like the casual use of nazi bothers you, saying things like Oh My God is abhorrent to some Christians. How do you plan to deal with these folks' sensitivities in the future as your past shows a complete lack of sensitivity...



Tschai said:


> Praise the lord!!!!





Tschai said:


> My god!!!!!





Tschai said:


> My god people!!!!


This next one has to be the worst. Any guesses what the F in OMFG means? Talk about trivializing the sanctity of someone's beliefs.



Tschai said:


> OMFG!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable! How many GD times does it need to be said.





Tschai said:


> My god, this is nuts.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

Can a moderator either a) lock this thread; or b) move it to The Lounge please?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> The image was removed within minutes of being posted at your request. The ensuing discussion is not an argument by the person who posted the image, it's a discussion about whether you were being overly sensitive about the image. It seems that it was not sufficient that the reference be removed, you also had to school other posters about the correctness of your demand and the incorrectness of the image. Had you simply been satisfied that the image was removed and not responded to those that questioned your need to make the demand, all of this would have been avoided.
> 
> Having said that, maybe it's a good idea to check to see if you are as sensitive to the feelings of other people when you post. There was a thread on this board posted by someone with an anxiety disorder that wanted to ride on the sidewalk because of his fears. He was made fun of by many posters for including a irrational fear of preparing grilled cheese sandwiches and there were others saying that this was insensitive. You replied to a poster who said "no one should have to get used to the jokes about an anxiety disorder" with the following:
> 
> ...


I did not request the moderator to remove the image and I certainly did not make a personal attack on any individual until after I was attacked first. You know, the tried and true "I feel sorry for you" crap. I also did not even know the image was gone until after I made most of my follow up posts. Regardless, I have noticed a few things. First, you seem to be a bit of a stalker. Second, if the OP in the other thread does have a legit fear of making grilled cheese sandwiches, I will admit that my comments may have been inappropriate. But, one, the issues in that thread are not relevant to this thread and two, my insensitive grilled cheese comments show that I am not Mr. Political Correctness Oversensitive Punani Boy. As I have said, I am a far cry from a tree hugging PC-Bot. And no, it cannot be said that accusing others of being insensitive is more insensitive than making jokes about Nazis.
This logic again seems to indicate that noting is inappropriate and no one can point out something that is. The fact is that there are many things that are inappropriate and pointing that out to others is the right thing to do. 

The bottom line is simple. The grammar Nazi symbol used looks like a swastika. There is absolutely no need to use it to convey the lame a$$ point that someone's grammar sucks. It is not funny. It is used by people that really don't understand the seriousness of the symbol. Check out the National Grammar Nazi Society and International Grammar Nazi Federation pages of Facebook. Disgusting. A continued cavalier use of the word Nazi and the like, leads to such crap.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> One last thing to chew on. Many, many Christians feel that God should only be referred to in prayer. Any other reference is blasphemous. Much like the casual use of nazi bothers you, saying things like Oh My God is abhorrent to some Christians. How do you plan to deal with these folks' sensitivities in the future as your past shows a complete lack of sensitivity...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BS. Enough with the irrelevant comparisons. I could just as easily say how do you deal with the use of the "N" word. Do you find it offensive? My arguments are on the topic of the use of the word Nazi and symbols that replicate the swastika, not the word God.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> I did not request the moderator to remove the image and I certainly did not make a personal attack on any individual until after I was attacked first.


I didn't say that you did either of those things.



Tschai said:


> First, you seem to be a bit of a stalker.


That is extremely insensitive to those people who have lost family member to actual stalkers. I'd appreciate it if you would use another, more frivolous word to portray the meaning of quoting someone on a forum.



Tschai said:


> Second, if the OP in the other thread does have a legit fear of making grilled cheese sandwiches, I will admit that my comments may have been inappropriate.


All we can do is take the poster at his word. You even commented that it may be a legit anxiety but still felt it was ok to joke about it and tell the person to HTFU.



Tschai said:


> But, one, the issues in that thread are not relevant to this thread and two, my insensitive grilled cheese comments show that I am not Mr. Political Correctness Oversensitive Punani Boy.


All that says is that you're insensitive to others but want people to respect your sensitivities. You're digging the hole deeper.



Tschai said:


> This logic again seems to indicate that noting is inappropriate and no one can point out something that is. The fact is that there are many things that are inappropriate and pointing that out to others is the right thing to do.


As I pointed out OMFG could be deemed extremely insensitive & blasphemous to many people. I suggest you edit that post.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> BS. Enough with the irrelevant comparisons. I could just as easily say how do you deal with the use of the "N" word. Do you find it offensive? My arguments are on the topic of the use of the word Nazi and symbols that replicate the swastika, not the word God.


Of course those are your arguments. All you're saying is that it's important to you that people not use the word nazi in a cavalier way but you intend to continue to use the name of the Lord in vain. So your response to having it pointed out that using "God" in a casual manner the way you do causes the same reactions to the use of the word "Nazi" is that you don't really care.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Red90 said:


> This is really a case of free speech vs political correctness. Americans are protected by free speech to almost say anything they want and express their opinions. There are different rules depending on the medium that your expressing them in.. i.e. workplace or say this forum which may have some standards on what can or cannot be expressed.
> 
> Having the right to free speech also means that there will be people that are offended by what others say, even if it is not intended. As said, not everyone will feel the same about certain things. Some will be offended, others will not. It's not our right to dictate what other people say or how they should feel.
> 
> Political correctness just derives from what the public has deemed to be socially acceptable and non offensive to the general public. It doesn't mandate how one must speak or express themselves.


This has nothing to do with free speech.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> Of course those are your arguments. All you're saying is that it's important to you that people not use the word nazi in a cavalier way but you intend to continue to use the name of the Lord in vain.


No, they are not my arguments, they are your arguments. Stop stalking me and stick to the topic. By your logic nothing is inappropriate. The fact that you are actually comparing the use of God to the use of Nazi and a swastika replica shows you don't get it.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> My arguments are on the topic of the use of the word Nazi and symbols that replicate the swastika, not the word God.





DaveWC said:


> Of course those are your arguments.





Tschai said:


> No, they are not my arguments, they are your arguments.


Please try and understand context.



Tschai said:


> Stop stalking me and stick to the topic.


Stop stalking you, but respond to your post by sticking to the topic. That makes sense.



Tschai said:


> By your logic nothing is inappropriate. The fact that you are actually comparing the use of God to the use of Nazi and a swastika replica shows you don't get it.


Actually by my logic many things are inappropriate. It depends on the reader of the words. To you, the casual use of the word "nazi" is inappropriate. To me using OMFG is extremely inappropriate. I don't feel the need to start a new thread to point out that you only care about your own sensitivities while ignoring those of others. You don't get to determine what is inappropriate to my eyes. And if you're saying that my feelings don't matter as this is only a discussion about what bothers you, then the responses you received earlier were well deserved.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

I've always found it interesting to see how people who are offended by the words of others react when their own words are deemed offensive by some. Yours is a perfect example of how this should not go down.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

SPlKE said:


> I was going to refer to your post as being a nazi nazi, but I changed my mind.


Don't be a nazi about the nazi nazis. 

Whether anyone likes it or not the word has entered the lexicon of common usage. I think the more it is used the more it diminishes the philosophy of its creators. 

My father fought them, lost family members to them, liberated two camps, but had no problem using the word in it's non-National Socialist definition. If it was okay by him it is okay by me.


----------



## RedViola (Aug 15, 2012)

A bit off-topic but I noticed today that wearing black chamois-less bib tights on top of my full-chamois black bib shorts results in definite penile silhouetting where none previously existed with the bib shorts alone.

I guess the cold weather brings out the best in me. You're welcome ladies.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Tschai said:


> This is wrong. Go read the posts again. The name calling did not start with me.
> 
> It's insane that people are essentially defending a post that, in an effort to point out a grammar mistake, combined the word "Nazi" with a symbol that looked almost exactly like a swastika. Then they ignore the fact that this could be extremely offensive to Holocaust survivors, their families and many others (AGAIN, NOT ONE POST ADDRESSES THOSE THAT MAY BE OFFENDED) and justify their vitriol on the basis that political correctness and oversensitivity is ripping this country apart. Some, such as junior, seem to be saying that any amount of political correctness is abhorrent, regardless of the word at issue. There is no logic to this. Some words and symbols are offensive, others are not. The point is to address each case independently. By junior's logic it would seem nothing should be offensive or inappropriate. We know that is not true.


Well, instead of putting words in my post (instead of my mouth), I'll give you my own. I do believe there are things (words, images, and symbols) that are offensive and abhorrent, and shouldn't be used. I also believe that not all people are offended by the same things that I am, therefore instead of insisting that everybody toe my line, I attempt to limit my outrage at things others post to a common standard. Why do I do this? Simple, I believe in our Bill Of Rights (which states all men (and women) are created equal),and our Constitution's 1st Amendment which states among other things, our rights to free speech. I was taught (by my parents, school, and service in the Navy) that EVERYBODY has these same rights NO MATTER HOW INCONVENIENT IT MIGHT BE TO ME. In other words, regardless of weather I like or dislike what you say, you have the right to say it (within reason; ie. inciting violence or slander are exceptions). Once I accepted that, most other aspects of conversing have fallen into place. That means I have an unwavering weight which to measure the words of my fellow posters. It doesn't matter if I like or dislike what you (or they type), only weather what they type fits within the stated parameters of the forum (which are clearly posted). As long as they stay within bounds, I will not attempt to police their sensitivity (or lack there of) to the various 'sacred cows' (apologies to any Hindus who might dislike that turn of phrase). Should some one type something so abhorrent to me, I will (and have in the past) tell that poster I don't like what they posted, and then refrain from dealing with that poster again if they persist. In either case though, I work from the starting point that the people on the other side of the screen are rational and competent individuals who are capable of policing their own actions without guidance from me, and if they prove not to be, I simply don't deal with them. 

I refuse to waste my time with political correctness, since it artificially limits me to the behavior and speech that is fashionable at that time, by the most vocal group at the time. Best example I can think of at the moment is the evolution of how black people (of which I proudly am one) have been called over the years. In my life time so far it has gone from the N word to *****, Colored, Afro-American, and Black, and those are the ones I can use in polite company. I find all of these somewhat offensive, since if you want to refer to me use my name (if you don't know my name, ask). The point being that referring to an entire group of people by their skin color is insulting (look at the current ongoing controversy over the Wa. Redskins), yet it's fine to do so since the current crop of race baiters have other fish to fry. I don't wave the bloody shirt over this, I have better uses for my time.

That is my 'logic' on this subject.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> Please try and understand context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More BS and deflection. There is no reason that Grammar Nazi symbol should be used. 

The swastika symbolizes perhaps the most evil regime ever to exist. Not only did the Nazis start a war that killed 50 million people, they slaughtered nearly 10 million people in concentration camps. If you and the others can't figure out why someone would find that offensive, then you're really beyond hope. So no, it does not depend on the reader.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

To you, the casual use of the word "nazi" is inappropriate. To me using OMFG is extremely inappropriate. That's neither BS nor deflection. It's just you saying one thing and doing another. No idea why anyone should care what you feel is inappropriate since you don't give the same care to others.


----------



## Samfujiabq (Jul 3, 2013)

Tschai said:


> No, please use stronger words. These passive aggressive attacks are simply mind blowing.
> 
> You feel sorry for me because of my position on a word and a symbol. Yikes!!!!


I know you hate the word but its history,many of the things I had to do as a cop were "NAZI"like,profiling,discrimination,all under orders,,like a NAZI I dismissed it as I was just "obeying orders"I get to live with it now!It happened then and it's happening all around you wake up and smell the "Schutzstaffel".


----------



## scduc (Dec 16, 2012)

DMP73 said:


> 3 hours on the bike, and my tortoise head has inverted itself anyways...I pretty much have to play the hand banjo to wake the old fella up.


Pretty much the same here. As far as teenage girls checking you out, well you have to caulk that up to puberty. young girls just like young guys look at anything that wiggles. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, well then you have to think about why. Remember, They may be looking at you with admiration. or maybe they just think we look like dorks in our tights. Highly unlikely that its anything sexual.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

scduc said:


> Highly unlikely that its anything sexual.


Right, it's probably more curiosity.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

Pirx said:


> You mean "nothing *fazes* them now", right? With greetings from the spelling police.


No. He means *exp{i θ}*


----------



## teslaosiris (Oct 15, 2013)

I wear base layer shorts under my bib shorts... It prevents any see through exposure as well as serving the more important function of keeping everything in its proper place. I had multiple nut pinches happen that were quite painful.


----------



## cnskate (Nov 8, 2011)

Flamers.....get a life.

LG Elite bibs are great for being "discrete", but not so good for the perenium, IMHO. Castelli Nanoflex bibs should have an X rating on them.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

cnskate said:


> LG Elite bibs are great for being "discrete", but not so good for the *perineum*, IMHO.


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

On topic...my Castelli bibs have a chamois "extension" that covers some of ye olde junk. I smooths out the typical man-mess of parts. My wife even said they are more flattering. Not so much flattering as in augmenting, flattering as in smoothing of the lines.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

junior1210 said:


> Well, instead of putting words in my post (instead of my mouth), I'll give you my own. I do believe there are things (words, images, and symbols) that are offensive and abhorrent, and shouldn't be used. I also believe that not all people are offended by the same things that I am, therefore instead of insisting that everybody toe my line, I attempt to limit my outrage at things others post to a common standard. Why do I do this? Simple, I believe in our Bill Of Rights (which states all men (and women) are created equal),and our Constitution's 1st Amendment which states among other things, our rights to free speech. I was taught (by my parents, school, and service in the Navy) that EVERYBODY has these same rights NO MATTER HOW INCONVENIENT IT MIGHT BE TO ME. In other words, regardless of weather I like or dislike what you say, you have the right to say it (within reason; ie. inciting violence or slander are exceptions). Once I accepted that, most other aspects of conversing have fallen into place. That means I have an unwavering weight which to measure the words of my fellow posters. It doesn't matter if I like or dislike what you (or they type), only weather what they type fits within the stated parameters of the forum (which are clearly posted). As long as they stay within bounds, I will not attempt to police their sensitivity (or lack there of) to the various 'sacred cows' (apologies to any Hindus who might dislike that turn of phrase). Should some one type something so abhorrent to me, I will (and have in the past) tell that poster I don't like what they posted, and then refrain from dealing with that poster again if they persist. In either case though, I work from the starting point that the people on the other side of the screen are rational and competent individuals who are capable of policing their own actions without guidance from me, and if they prove not to be, I simply don't deal with them.
> 
> I refuse to waste my time with political correctness, since it artificially limits me to the behavior and speech that is fashionable at that time, by the most vocal group at the time. Best example I can think of at the moment is the evolution of how black people (of which I proudly am one) have been called over the years. In my life time so far it has gone from the N word to *****, Colored, Afro-American, and Black, and those are the ones I can use in polite company. I find all of these somewhat offensive, since if you want to refer to me use my name (if you don't know my name, ask). The point being that referring to an entire group of people by their skin color is insulting (look at the current ongoing controversy over the Wa. Redskins), yet it's fine to do so since the current crop of race baiters have other fish to fry. I don't wave the bloody shirt over this, I have better uses for my time.
> 
> That is my 'logic' on this subject.


Well said.

Freedom of speech isn't for people who agree with you...it for the ones who don't (and the same applies in reverse).

Personally, I've shifted my viewpoint to intent rather than literal definitions. If someone uses a word not attempt NG to be offending...I am not offended. If someone is being abusive, darn near any word can be offensive.

Example. Hog. Hog is not an offensive word, it is a name for an animal. BUT, if someone calls my wife a hog, that is a different story. Again, even if used in that context, hog is still not offensive...it is the attempt to insult my wife that is.

Either way...life goes on and so does this thread....


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> To you, the casual use of the word "nazi" is inappropriate. To me using OMFG is extremely inappropriate. That's neither BS nor deflection. It's just you saying one thing and doing another. No idea why anyone should care what you feel is inappropriate since you don't give the same care to others.


All of your posts have been deflection. Rather than address the issue, you resort to attacking the messenger. Whether I give the same care to others is, whatever that means, simply an ad hominem. 

What amazes me is that you and so many others are actually defending the use of a symbol that looks like a swastika in the context of correct grammar. It's nuts. First, a grammar correction post is simply lame as it gets. What type of a$$hat responds to a topic that way? Second, using a swastika in a lame a$$ post correcting someone's grammar is even more lame. It is not needed, it makes no sense and it is offensive. If some a$$hat has the need to point out a poster's grammar issues, there is no need to use a swastika to do it. The whole thing was lame.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Tschai said:


> What amazes me is that you and so many others are actually defending the use of a symbol that looks like a swastika in the context of correct grammar. It's nuts.


Honey, let me give you a hint here: Let's start with the general observation that the amazement you express results from a mismatch between your expectations that are flowing from your view of reality, versus the reality you encounter. The question you might want to ask yourself at this point is, what is the reason for this mismatch? Is it your view of reality that is off, or is it reality that is off? The answer should be obvious. You can stomp your little foot as much as you want, the world, and the people in it, will not be any different just because of your very personal opinions and sensitivities. Other than that, if you don't like what you read in this forum, go find yourself another one. You are in no position to tell anyone in here what to say or not to say, or how to express themselves. Just like everybody else here, you are a guest at this forum. The rules of this place are determined by its owners and enforced by the moderators. You may notice that your concerns have not prompted a reaction by the mods. If you believe this to be an oversight, feel free to contact them and discuss your grievances with them.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Tschai said:


> All of your posts have been deflection. Rather than address the issue, you resort to attacking the messenger. Whether I give the same care to others is, whatever that means, simply an ad hominem.
> 
> What amazes me is that you and so many others are actually defending the use of a symbol that looks like a swastika in the context of correct grammar. It's nuts. First, a grammar correction post is simply lame as it gets. What type of a$$hat responds to a topic that way? Second, using a swastika in a lame a$$ post correcting someone's grammar is even more lame. It is not needed, it makes no sense and it is offensive. If some a$$hat has the need to point out a poster's grammar issues, there is no need to use a swastika to do it. The whole thing was lame.


I love you too.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Typetwelve said:


> On topic...my Castelli bibs have a chamois "extension" that covers some of ye olde junk.


Assos have some new ultra-luxe shorts with a little pouch for your junk.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

I guess I see a bigger issue than Tschai is willing to discuss. I see it as this is a public forum and people are going to say things that are innocuous to them but offensive to others. Example, grammar nazi or OMFG. Both can be viewed as quite offensive depending on the person. Now Tschai wants us to only discuss the offensive things that he has pointed out and when it is shown that he is equally (or much more IMO) offensive he says that that is deflection. I guess because that is deflecting our attention from his small point about the use of single offensive phrase to the much larger point that people say things that are offensive to someone every day. And given that he is guilty of that he doesn't want our attention diverted. So he's right it's deflection. It's not incorrect. He's not apologetic for being so offensive. He simply wants to discuss things that offend him and nothing else. I find that offensive and that alone warrants ignoring his concerns.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

I had my "junk" surgically removed to facilitate social interactions while biking in lycra. As an added advantage, this renders me more aerodynamic, and I lost 10 or 15 lbs of extra body mass. Unfortunately, the surgical scar resembles a swastika, so I can only associate with castrated neo-nazis when in the nude.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Nailed it.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

10 or 15 pounds, that's some epic junk!


----------



## morgahorse (Jun 23, 2013)

ph0enix said:


> I've been staring at this pic for 3 hours and 12 minutes now...
> What event was that?


They were the models for champ car back in the late '90's early 00's.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

DaveWC said:


> I guess I see a bigger issue than Tschai is willing to discuss. I see it as this is a public forum and people are going to say things that are innocuous to them but offensive to others. Example, grammar nazi or OMFG. Both can be viewed as quite offensive depending on the person. Now Tschai wants us to only discuss the offensive things that he has pointed out and when it is shown that he is equally (or much more IMO) offensive he says that that is deflection. I guess because that is deflecting our attention from his small point about the use of single offensive phrase to the much larger point that people say things that are offensive to someone every day. And given that he is guilty of that he doesn't want our attention diverted. So he's right it's deflection. It's not incorrect. He's not apologetic for being so offensive. He simply wants to discuss things that offend him and nothing else. I find that offensive and that alone warrants ignoring his concerns.


You're being such a Bolshevik about this. Like, Khmer Rouge-level Bolshevik.


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

SPlKE said:


> Khmer Rouge-level Bolshevik.


Khmer Rouge were Bolsheviks? What comic book is that from? Or is it from a 80's-era cereal box?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

AndreyT said:


> Khmer Rouge were Bolsheviks? What comic book is that from? Or is it from a 80's-era cereal box?


They were bolsheviky in some ways, you have to admit. Hey now, don't be a bolshevik-nazi.


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

SPlKE said:


> They were bolsheviky in some ways, you have to admit. Hey now, don't be a bolshevik-nazi.


I do it purely out of scientific interest. As a hobby research project, I'm collecting data on mental disfigurements produced by prolonged exposure to American propaganda. 

Let's get back to our research. "Bolshevik-nazi", eh? How is that possible, considering that Bolshevik is an opposite of Nazi?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Sorry I blew up.


----------



## rdtindsm (Jan 16, 2013)

Tschai said:


> More BS and deflection. There is no reason that Grammar Nazi symbol should be used.
> 
> The swastika symbolizes perhaps the most evil regime ever to exist. Not only did the Nazis start a war that killed 50 million people, they slaughtered nearly 10 million people in concentration camps. If you and the others can't figure out why someone would find that offensive, then you're really beyond hope. So no, it does not depend on the reader.


The swastika predates the Nazi regime. It is a symbol of god luck in Tibetan Buddhism. I probably have a rug with a swastika on it. If I don't, I've seen many pictures of it being used on on Tibetan rugs and elsewhere. I agree that it is reprehensible when used in a context reflecting bigotry, but it does depend on context.


----------



## Blackbeerthepirate (Apr 26, 2011)

So this is what it's come to? We have become so politically correct that I guess I'm supposed to find some way of making myself look like a "Ken doll" so as not to potentially offend someone. 

Apparently posting in RBR is not immune to this PC thinking. Some words or phrases might potentially offended others, so let's not use anything like that around here. Even though this will certainly interfere with the free exchange of ideas and thoughts. 

I would suggest to some, that instead of going on a multipost rant about how horribly they have been offended, that they just hit the ignore button, go somewhere else or, to bastardize a phrase used around here, lightenTFU.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

AndreyT said:


> How is that possible, considering that Bolshevik is an opposite of Nazi?


Just ask the citizens of Poland.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Blackbeerthepirate said:


> So this is what it's come to? We have become so politically correct that I guess I'm supposed to find some way of making myself look like a "Ken doll" so as not to potentially offend someone.
> 
> Apparently posting in RBR is not immune to this PC thinking. Some words or phrases might potentially offended others, so let's not use anything like that around here. Even though this will certainly interfere with the free exchange of ideas and thoughts.
> 
> I would suggest to some, that instead of going on a multipost rant about how horribly they have been offended, that they just hit the ignore button, go somewhere else or, to bastardize a phrase used around here, lightenTFU.


I'm offended by the fact that you took offense at someone being offended......I think. I'm confused.:idea:


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

wgscott said:


> Just ask the citizens of Poland.


Really? I had a chance to do it many times. I'm almost Polish myself. 

Yes, I'm aware of the standard indoctrinative brain damage characteristic of the typical victims of the US regime (which, BTW, your reference to "citizens of Poland" is a schoolbook symptom of). The reason I was asking the above questions was because I didn't know whether I stumbled upon something new (the "Khmer Rouge - Bolsheviks" connection was something I never observed in the wild before), or just some drivel some moron picked out of his nose right on the spot.

It was a long shot. And turned out to be a false alarm, expectedly. Nothing to see here.


----------



## azpeterb (Jun 1, 2006)

junior1210 said:


> I'm offended by the fact that you took offense at someone being offended......I think. I'm confused.:idea:


I am both confused about why you are offended and offended that you are confused! :crazy:


----------



## LejeuneCdM (Sep 5, 2008)

rdtindsm said:


> The swastika predates the Nazi regime. It is a symbol of god luck in Tibetan Buddhism. I probably have a rug with a swastika on it. If I don't, I've seen many pictures of it being used on on Tibetan rugs and elsewhere. I agree that it is reprehensible when used in a context reflecting bigotry, but it does depend on context.


It is also a Southwest American Indian symbol of good luck. It was the insignia of the 45th Infantry Division until the the swastika's meaning was hijacked. Ask the Wehrmacht how PO'd the 45th was about that.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

azpeterb said:


> I am both confused about why you are offended and offended that you are confused! :crazy:


You win! You're the first one to actually figure out this thread...where do I mail the grand prize check?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

AndreyT said:


> Really? I had a chance to do it many times. I'm almost Polish myself.
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of the standard indoctrinative brain damage characteristic of the typical victims of the US regime (which, BTW, your reference to "citizens of Poland" is a schoolbook symptom of). The reason I was asking the above questions was because I didn't know whether I stumbled upon something new (the "Khmer Rouge - Bolsheviks" connection was something I never observed in the wild before), or just some drivel some moron picked out of his nose right on the spot.
> 
> It was a long shot. And turned out to be a false alarm, expectedly. Nothing to see here.


[email protected]

How about Polish Pol Pot?

Better?


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

AndreyT said:


> Yes, I'm aware of the standard indoctrinative brain damage characteristic of the typical victims of the US regime (which, BTW, your reference to "citizens of Poland" is a schoolbook symptom of).


So there was never a Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

wgscott said:


> So there was never a Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?


There certainly was. And?


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

bikerjulio said:


> Colors other than black definitely emphasise certain features. Like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


these guys are wearing different color helmets? is that it... Whoa!!!! maybe they need to wear something to "smooth out" that area for wind resistance. not sue which 'position' is the most aerodynmaic there. but leave that alone, has that been windtunnel tested?

guess the team opted for the 3rd sock?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Was this picture before or after seeing the podium girls?


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

AndreyT said:


> There certainly was. And?


And your memory hole is showing through your lycra bibshorts.


----------



## gte (Jun 7, 2013)

wgscott said:


> I had my "junk" surgically removed to facilitate social interactions while biking in lycra. As an added advantage, this renders me more aerodynamic, and I lost 10 or 15 lbs of extra body mass. Unfortunately, the surgical scar resembles a swastika, so I can only associate with castrated neo-nazis when in the nude.


I don't remember the last time something on the internet made me laugh that hard. I had to rep it.


----------



## robj4 (Aug 21, 2013)

Typetwelve said:


> On topic...my Castelli bibs have a chamois "extension" that covers some of ye olde junk. I smooths out the typical man-mess of parts. My wife even said they are more flattering. Not so much flattering as in augmenting, flattering as in smoothing of the lines.


I'll second this. They work well in that regard. Just the other day, the attractive new neighbor even mentioned it to my wife. Yeah, that went over well...


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

robj4 said:


> I'll second this. They work well in that regard. Just the other day, the attractive new neighbor even mentioned it to my wife. Yeah, that went over well...


Whoops...yeah, IF I had an attractive neighbor (which I don't) and IF she just happened to be the 1:1,000,000 women that actually find men in cycling shorts attractive and IF she had the stones to make a comment to my wife...yeah, that wouldn't go over too well either.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

robj4 said:


> I'll second this. They work well in that regard. Just the other day, the attractive new neighbor even mentioned it to my wife. Yeah, that went over well...


Heck, maybe you can talk your wife into renting you out? Bet the attractive neighbor has a honey-do list as well.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> I guess I see a bigger issue than Tschai is willing to discuss. I see it as this is a public forum and people are going to say things that are innocuous to them but offensive to others. Example, grammar nazi or OMFG. Both can be viewed as quite offensive depending on the person. Now Tschai wants us to only discuss the offensive things that he has pointed out and when it is shown that he is equally (or much more IMO) offensive he says that that is deflection. I guess because that is deflecting our attention from his small point about the use of single offensive phrase to the much larger point that people say things that are offensive to someone every day. And given that he is guilty of that he doesn't want our attention diverted. So he's right it's deflection. It's not incorrect. He's not apologetic for being so offensive. He simply wants to discuss things that offend him and nothing else. I find that offensive and that alone warrants ignoring his concerns.


I am not going to apologize for being offensive in other, old threads, in a vacuum. I have no problem having a discussion about the use of OMFG and the like. However, doing so only to get the same old "its all relative" defense of the use of words and symbols that are extremely offensive to large segments of society would be pointless and would only underscore the false logic you and many others here have used to defend the use of an offensive symbol that transcends innocuous. Yes, it does transcend it, as do may other words and symbols. There are things that should never fall under the category of "it's all relative." If I am willing to address my continued use of OMFG and the like, all those defending the use of the swastika lookalike must be willing to do the same. I highly doubt they are. Moreover, since that is the case, all of these people HAVE made this issue about me while completely ignoring the fact that many many people would be offended. 

Now, to use another example - the Redskins. Polls show that most people are not offended. I wonder what polls of Native Americans would show? If there are enough people offended, even if the number is a minority, there is a point where the benefit of continuing the use of Redskins is outweighed by the damage it causes. The fact that it is only a football team nickname further underscores why continued use makes less and less sense. This example again shows that such things are not all relative. Yes, this is a public forum. Not once did I ever suggest it was not. Nor do I suggest that I am making this a freedom of speech issue. It is not. We are free to be offensive. Nor have I ever once approached the moderators about this or any other post. NEVER, not once. I have never complained to a moderator. Too many of you are making assumptions. 

The bottom line DaveWC is that you are asking me to concede that while item A is offensive to me and while item B is offensive to you, that is just how things are and we all need to get along. Some items do fall within this category. Many items. But, not all items do.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Tschai said:


> The bottom line DaveWC is that you are asking me to concede that while item A is offensive to me and while item B is offensive to you, that is just how things are and we all need to get along. Some items do fall within this category. Many items. But, not all items do.


Nope. Not asking that at all. What I am saying is that some of your post have been profoundly offensive to me. I have ignored them as it's easy to just skip over offensive crap like that. But when you show an inability to do the same about material that you find offensive I speak up. We don't need to get along. You don't need to read offensive material, nor do you need to be quiet about it. But you do need to recognize that you are guilty of being offensive as well. And maybe if you recognized that you'd be more tolerant of stuff that bugs you.

As for "some items do fall within this category. Many items. But, not all items do"... you don't get to determine which items are deemed offensive to others.


----------



## Favorit (Aug 13, 2012)

RedViola said:


> Some of you seem to be spending a lot of time in bibs yet mysteriously off of the bike. I kit up, head out, ride back; hell, *_I_* don't even see my own cock again until I get home and jump in the shower.
> 
> To be fair, I am partial to Giordana chamois bibs, which are comfortable in the extreme and tend to make me look like I have a vagina.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:I see. 

Ah yes, there was a thread about bib vagina not long ago, and my Assos do the same thing. I was considering starting a thread about "jersey penis" too, since one of my full zipper jerseys do this kind of "tenting" thing while in the cycling position. Speaking of Seinfeld, Larry David had the same thing happen to his pants: Warning-NSFW Curb Your Enthusiasm - Pants Scene - YouTube


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DaveWC said:


> Nope. Not asking that at all. What I am saying is that some of your post have been profoundly offensive to me. I have ignored them as it's easy to just skip over offensive crap like that. But when you show an inability to do the same about material that you find offensive I speak up. We don't need to get along. You don't need to read offensive material, nor do you need to be quiet about it. But you do need to recognize that you are guilty of being offensive as well. And maybe if you recognized that you'd be more tolerant of stuff that bugs you.
> 
> As for "some items do fall within this category. Many items. But, not all items do"... you don't get to determine which items are deemed offensive to others.


This is nothing more than circular logic that makes no sense. You state you have ignored my offensive posts because "it's easy to just skip over offensive crap like that." This sounds way to casual and cavalier for you to really have been offended. In any case, I don't recall you ever informing me in those other posts that I offended you. Perhaps that would make sense. 

I never said I was not guilty of being offensive. I have. But again, whether or not it is appropriate to post a swastika lookalike in a grammar Nazi post has nothing to do with me. In terms of my tolerance, you and so many others have made assumptions based on internet forum data. You have no clue how tolerant I am of stuff that bugs me. 

What you fail to understand is that there are times when there is a line that should not be crossed. I am not deciding what is offensive to others. Many others, such as Holocaust survivors and the like, are deciding that using swastika lookalikes is inappropriate. I am simply agreeing. It seems that neither you nor many others here care about these people's feelings. Pointing out someone's grammar mistakes, as worthless as that may be, can be done using other words and symbols that are less controversial.

Some people may not find these items offensive, but the people that do should be respected, especially when we are dealing with something as serious as the Holocaust. This stands on its own. It is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of millions. I say this because I anticipate more personal attacks. So be it. As I said earlier, I never said I was not guilty of being offensive, even though that should not matter. 

Goodbye to all.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I sincerely hope there was some serious middle aged angst and neg repping.


----------



## StarTrekBiker (Oct 16, 2013)

Tschai said:


> Now, to use another example - the Redskins. Polls show that most people are not offended. I wonder what polls of Native Americans would show? If there are enough people offended, even if the number is a minority, there is a point where the benefit of continuing the use of Redskins is outweighed by the damage it causes. The fact that it is only a football team nickname further underscores why continued use makes less and less sense.


Actually, polls of Native Americans show that most are NOT offended. From a poll conducted by Sports Illustrated:

_"Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols."
_
Just FYI.
Is the Redskins Name Offensive to Native Americans? - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

Men: we must stop being ashamed of the way we were created, or evolved. Stop being so self-conscious. If you are ashamed of the way you look in cycling clothes, wear regular shorts, and enjoy the discomfort of all that material crushing your external features into a mess. 

Women: you also need to lose your insecurities about men wearing form-fitted clothing. What if men were offended by breasts or cleavage? It just so happens that most of us are not, but this double standard that women can walk around in yoga pants so snug fitting I can see the pulse in your hip, versus a man who DARES to wear a swim brief at the pool or GASP! cycling shorts while cycling, needs to stop.

I've made it my personal goal to wear EXACTLY whatever the f I want to wear at the pool, on my bike, anywhere. If my anatomy is offensive to you because of the fit of the material, then that is your problem. And if I was 40 pounds overweight and wanted to wear the same thing, I'd do that too.

Jeez... Americans and their hypocritical, puritanical opinions...


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

That double standard only applies if the ladies in yoga pants look good in yoga pants. Otherwise the rule applies to them too. Hypocritical? Yes it is, but I also have a healthy sense of aesthetics as well.


----------



## Red90 (Apr 2, 2013)

By that same logic, people should be able to walk around without any clothes on in front of adults and children alike as they should not feel ashamed of who they are. I don't disagree with this logic, however I feel that this logic would be ignoring the realities of what has become culturally acceptable and not.

What is culturally acceptable has been developed through how people are taught as they grow up, the media and social interactions. This varies from place to place, religion and cultural norms. This conditioning, whether or not it's logically right or wrong will cause people to feel offended or embarrassed. That is just the reality of our society. Maybe more so in America than European countries.

Even myself, I can say that I wouldn't be comfortable I had a daughter and she was exposed to a bunch of men walking stark naked on the street. I can't explain why I feel that's unacceptable, it's not logical as we are all human beings and it's natural. Maybe we need to change this cultural opinion. Never the less, these emotions do exist and it would be ignorant to pretend it's not there or that others may feel similar.

My original question was really to bring up this issue as I could not answer whether or not it was generally acceptable in front of underaged girls that we are sort of exposing ourselves. Normally I don't give a rats ass to what other adults think of how I present myself, however in this case I wasn't so sure a they were kids.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Red90 said:


> My original question was really to bring up this issue as I could not answer whether or not it was generally acceptable in front of underaged girls that we are sort of exposing ourselves. Normally I don't give a rats ass to what other adults think of how I present myself, however in this case I wasn't so sure a they were kids.


FWIW, IMO, I don't think it's a problem as long as you aren't purposely going about displaying yourself to the young ladies. If you're going about your business and they see your 'attributes', then oh well. I don't see it as any different than a woman wearing a low cut blouse and someone seeing some cleavage (although I'd much rather see her 'attributes' than yours) without actively trying to get a free shot.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

Not really the logic that I was going for. It's hard doing this on the internet without being able to read inflection of speech, so I give you a pass. 

Of course, walking in the nude is illegal anywhere for the most part except nude beaches, which are closed to children or some tribal community where no one HAS any clothes to wear. What I'm talking about is the obvious double standard that WE MEN are propagating against ourselves because we are embarrassed by our bodies. I can still see my abs, and if I want to walk around a beach town, legally without a shirt on all day long, regardless of some fat chub that doesn't "want to see that", that's his own insecurity and his wife's jealous lust that's making him say that. 

And if wearing a speedo is what I want to wear to the pool, and I "fill it out" and that bothers people, that's not my problem. It's being done to show off for the kiddies. It's because it provides a better all over tan and is actually functionally better for swimming! And if you want to wear a big short because they are functionally better than non-bib shorts or cut off Levi's for cycling, then do it. And those who are offended, particularly any youth (boys or girls), need to have a teachable lesson about why they feel the need to make fun of another person's attire. Little high school Suzy and her friends do NOT have the market cornered on being "cool". They need to learn that they only minimize themselves when they redicule others because of their clothes. It's childish, and PARENTS/ADULTS need to correct them. When in the he11 did a 38 year old man like me give 2 shi+s about what a bunch of teens or whispering women have to say?

It's a bit of a rant. Work sucks today. Sorry.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I have read most of the posts. Some of y'all need therapy. Now.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

To think that this started as a fun, lighthearted thread..............


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

This is the new for 2014 Assos S7 T bib short series.










No CT any more, but maybe a bit more exposition in the two Kuku Penthouse-equipped models on the right.


----------



## SMK-SLC (May 3, 2012)

This thread requires pictures for the full effect to be understood.


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Was this picture before or after seeing the podium girls?


guess you can tell from the "thumbs" up or "thumbs" down...


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Those aren't their thumbs..............jus' sayin'.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

spade2you said:


> I have read most of the posts. Some of y'all need therapy. Now.


 Man, you said it...


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

This might be a little OT, but I always carry some money with me when I ride. I've found that the easiest way to do this is to buy a roll of quarters & shove them down where your private parts are. I get a lot of looks regardless of what color shorts I wear.


----------



## Soaring Vulture (Jun 25, 2013)

Mr. Versatile said:


> This might be a little OT, but I always carry some money with me when I ride. I've found that the easiest way to do this is to buy a roll of quarters & shove them down where your private parts are. I get a lot of looks regardless of what color shorts I wear.


I'd hate to get paid that way


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Mr. Versatile said:


> This might be a little OT, but I always carry some money with me when I ride. I've found that the easiest way to do this is to buy a roll of quarters & shove them down where your private parts are. I get a lot of looks regardless of what color shorts I wear.


Yuck. Where do you keep your gold watch? Never mind.


----------



## RedViola (Aug 15, 2012)

Lately I have been experiencing bib tight bunching when worn over standard chamois bib shorts. Does anyone manufacture the cycling equivalent of assless chaps?

Million dollar idea. Boom.


----------



## rogervered (Nov 6, 2013)

aveWC said:


> The image was removed within minutes of being posted at your request. The ensuing discussion is not an argument by the person who posted the image, it's a discussion about whether you were being overly sensitive about the image. It seems that it was not sufficient that the reference be removed, you also had to school other posters about the correctness of your demand and the incorrectness of the image. Had you simply been satisfied that the image was removed and not responded to those that questioned your need to make the demand, all of this would have been avoided. <img src="http://goo.gl/lh8uQf" />
> Having said that, maybe it's a good idea to check to see if you are as sensitive to the feelings of other people when you post. There was a thread on this board posted by someone with an anxiety disorder that wanted to ride on the sidewalk because of his fears. He was made fun of by many posters for including a irrational fear of preparing grilled cheese sandwiches and there were others saying that this was insensitive. You replied to a poster who said "no one should have to get used to the jokes about an anxiety disorder" with the following:
> 
> 
> ...



 

<tbody>

</tbody>I did not request the moderator to remove the image and I certainly did not make a personal attack on any individual until after I was attacked first. You know, the tried and true "I feel sorry for you" crap. I also did not even know the image was gone until after I made most of my follow up posts. Regardless, I have noticed a few things. First, you seem to be a bit of a stalker. Second, if the OP in the other thread does have a legit fear of making grilled cheese sandwiches, I will admit that my comments may have been inappropriate. But, one, the issues in that thread are not relevant to this thread and two, my insensitive grilled cheese comments show that I am not Mr. Political Correctness Oversensitive Punani Boy. As I have said, I am a far cry from a tree hugging PC-Bot. And no, it cannot be said that accusing others of being insensitive is more insensitive than making jokes about Nazis.This logic again seems to indicate that noting is inappropriate and no one can point out something that is. The fact is that there are many things that are inappropriate and pointing that out to others is the right thing to do.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

rogervered, is there a reason you're copy/pasting a previous message and passing it off as your own?

p.s. skip that. I see that all 3 of your posts are simply reposts of something someone said. Maybe you're Rand Paul using an alias.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

As for being bothered by the young girls checking out your package, i wouldn't waste too much time worrying about it. in this day and age, those young girls have probably already seen their fair share of the thing, if you know what I mean. Doesn't stop them from wanting to check out more though.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cinelli 82220 said:


>


Is it safe?


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Is it safe?


If you are white, speak German, have blonde hair and blue eyes? Absolutely. If not...well...not so much. And...no matter how nice they make it sound...Do Not opt for the "spa treatment"...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Typetwelve said:


> If you are white, speak German, have blonde hair and blue eyes? Absolutely. If not...well...not so much. And...no matter how nice they make it sound...Do Not opt for the "spa treatment"...


It was a movie quote. You guys sure can party.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

spade2you said:


> It was a movie quote. You guys sure can party.


?

I knew you were being silly...but perhaps I missed the quote. What film is it from?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Marathon Man. I also did a slight Booger quote in my response.


----------

