Your world is waiting...
https://www.quake3world.com/forum/
Your hideous beast of a wife doesn't count as riding experience, fatty.YourGrandpa wrote:I've ridden before. Though it has been several years. However, an 1130cc bike for someone who's 6'2" 190+lbs isn't "big". But I appreciate your concerns.
You don't own one.Κracus wrote:They aren't called golf's anymore in North America. it's either a GTI or a VW Rabbit and I think it's awesome.
Yes i would also gladly go with something like this... as i am searching for used bikes, im starting to appreciate the rawness of that style.EtUL wrote:This thread needs less dummies, more motorcycles
I prefer it over all the other options you posted... but of course, it's a fucking dukati.Unfortunately your wall of upset text doesn't change the fact that anyone who isn't a moron and has more than 5 minutes riding experience knows that when someone recommends starting out on a smaller bike they are referring to the power output, not the physical size of the bike. GFY even went on to blatantly point this out to you because you're so retarded. Yet here you are still crying about assumptions. lol you're one fat, bald, moronic, redneck cunt.YourGrandpa wrote:Dear Upset internet user,LawL wrote: BLAH BLAH BLAH more ignorance BLAH BLAH BLAH
I realize that you must have the last word on everything, could never admit you were wrong and would defend the most retarded of positions until the end of time. However, if you are still missing the point or unclear on the actual definition of the word assume (not the made up definition you've manufactured to support your obsessive argument) I'm going paint you a picture so clear, even someone with your unwillingness to accept ideas other than your own can understand.
This is GKY's original statement:
DumbFatGuy wrote:you'd be crazy starting off with a big Harley (lol redneck bike, etc) and should get a smaller bike instead.
At no point in this statement does GKY reference the specific size of anything. He in fact says "big Harley" as opposed to "smaller bike". Harleys aren't known for being fast and powerful race bikes. They're known for being loud an colossal cruisers. But that's neither here nor there. The FACT is, GKY doesn't specify the "big" or the "small". One would have to assume it was the physical size or the size of the engine or possibly some other inane observation rattling around inside the head of an angry computer nerd. So the only way for YOU to decide that GKY was referring to the engine size was to apply the definition of the word Assume ("suppose to be the case, without proof").
This is my original response:
You'll notice I ASSUMED GKY was either referencing the size of the engine or the physical size of the bike. Because I addressed them both in my response. Could I have worded it better? Sure. But that doesn't negate the content. I was stating that I didn't think an 1130 cc engine or the physical size the bike would be too big for ME. Even a "12 year old" could figure that out.YourGrandpa wrote:I've ridden before. Though it has been several years. However, an 1130cc bike for someone who's 6'2" 190+lbs isn't "big". But I appreciate your concerns.
Now I know you're going to have to say something. Most likely continuing to ignore the actual definition of the word assume or continued criticism of me somehow not knowing there's a difference between motor and bike size. But before your incredibly unoriginal OCD kicks in and causes you to draft another ridiculous response (similar in context and structure to the one I've provided above), think. You can't change GKY's original statement and you can clearly see I understood the gist of what GKY was trying to say. So unless you can change the definition of the word assume, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact you're wrong.
BTW, further discussion of this pointless anyway. I'm not even buying the bike.
Honda just released a new CB that looks like the old onesTsakali wrote:man, that black...dukati makes the naked style look easy to look good
however that old school white honda is pretty magnificent looking too.
can I get that naked look with pretty much any stripped down streetbike, or do some look better than others?
But I guess not, the one you own unfortunately has that futuristic shape build into the lights, hud,and frame ...that kinda takes away from the look
I crushed the parrot into fantasy land.LawL wrote:Just as I expected, too stupid to understand that you're the only moron desperately clinging to the idea that anything was assumed.
You lose, as always.
I never cared much for the fairing look either. I like the stripped down utilitarian look. Black and aluminum, with mag wheels.EtUL wrote:You get the naked look best with bikes that are meant to be naked. You can see that a lot of things on them like wires, overflow tanks, etc are hidden and overall they have a pretty clean look. Bikes with fairings usually aren't as pretty underneath the plastic.
You got crushed due to your never ending stupidity and ignorance. But then again what else is new.YourGrandpa wrote:I crushed the parrot into fantasy land.
LawLy want a cracker?
Ok.EtUL wrote:This thread needs less dummies, more motorcycles
EtUL wrote: Honda just released a new CB that looks like the old ones ...
You get the naked look best with bikes that are meant to be naked. You can see that a lot of things on them like wires, overflow tanks, etc are hidden and overall they have a pretty clean look. Bikes with fairings usually aren't as pretty underneath the plastic.
Looks nice. Simple and clean.Scourge wrote: Ok.
[lvlshot]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95659625/breakout2.jpg[/lvlshot]
