On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:01 AM, newenglandbike wrote:
> Shaun, I read you post and had an idea just out of curiosity, I
> opened the picture in photoshop- where there's a tool called the
> 'measure tool'. It can tell you the number of pixels between any two
> points in a digital image.
I think it looks great! It'll look even better when it gets the grey
paint with the red, blue, or orange panels. I didn't like the look of
the double-top-tube bikes at first but it has grown on me. I ride a
68cm Atlantis and Quickbeam now, and I don't notice much (if any)
frame flex or anything. Bu
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM, William wrote:
> 56cm Hillborne, and a 56 Bomba that I'll be picking
> up this month. Would a 54cm Hunqa be an absurd add to the stable?
>
> Isn't the Hunquapillar a budget Bombadil, as the SH is a sort of budget
AHH?
--
You received this message because you
I don't agree with Steve but I defend to the death his right to say it.
("It" being "fugly".)
But Steve, it's unfinished; of course it looks ugly. Otherwise, not much
different than the Bombadil, no?
Let freedom of opinion and crudity of expression reign free.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Se
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:47 PM, SJB wrote:
> I gotta say it, that is one seriously fugly bike.
>
> Steve-
>
No, you don't have to say it.
This list has by-and-large been positive.
If you don't like the bike and you cannot find a constructive way to
put it, then don't comment at all.
-sv
--
Okay Jim,
Those are awful pictures. Are you also the same photgrapher that took the
Bigfoot photos and made the Zapruder film? Although the graininess does
certainly give them a certain "spy photo authenticity".
Joe
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:14:00 -0800
> Subject: [RBW] Re: More Hunka news
