I just tell 'em "...the 20th century was good to me so that's where I'm staying..." Provides ample wiggle room on lots of issues.
dougP On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:13:32 PM UTC-8, meehan...@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm on board with doing away with the "retrogrouch" label. The only > drawback is that it would eliminate an easy way of categorizing myself > when trying to relate my preferences to someone who's enthusiastic about a > lot of the "whizbang" advancements that I have no interest in. > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> I think it's long past time to retire "retrogrouch." All it ever was >> was a term of derision directed at those who were too independent-minded to >> fall into a swoon at the mention of any gimcrack marketed as "something >> new" (in a field where little, if anything hasn't already been tried before >> at least once, if not many times over, most likely more than a lifetime >> ago). >> >> On 02/18/2014 03:44 PM, Shaun Meehan wrote: >> >> I get it. Everything old is new again, to the point where the >> "retrogrouch" is the guy/girl that's refusing to try the new old stuff >> because the old stuff is too new-fangled for him or her. Plus ça change >> and so forth... >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> This response is also tongue-in-cheek. tongue in cheek, tongue in >>> cheek. >>> >>> Since the new fad is for super flexy bikes made from undersized skinny >>> tubes, who is the retrogrouch in this picture? The young kid who is trying >>> this new flexible frame idea, having ridden stiff road bikes for the last >>> 10 years? Is that kid the retrogrouch? Or is the retrogrouch the person >>> who refuses to be open minded about the new fad for more flexible bikes, >>> because he (or she) is programmed with the sales pitch "you don't want a >>> bike that rides like a wet noodle" that they first heard 30 years ago? >>> >>> I don't know the answer to that tongue in cheek question. I own two >>> bikes with 'undersized' 28.6mm diameter downtubes. They were both made >>> recently. I bought them because I wanted to try out this new flexy thing. >>> I like them both. I also like my other bikes that have 31.8mm diameter >>> downtubes. Am I a retrogrouch because flexiness is the exclusive domain of >>> old bikes, even if they were manufactured recently? Or, since I haven't >>> made up my mind, am I not a retrogrouch? Or, since I call a 31.8mm >>> downtube "OS", am I a retrogrouch, derisively insulting my own bikes? >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
