Quackometer testing of Sheldon Brown articles

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:

http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer

Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth and
lore about bicycles for me!

Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:

"This web site looks OK - but keep your guard up and don't rely on the
black duck to spot all quackery!"


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheldonbrown.com%2Fgeomag.ht ml


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheldonbrown.com%2Fpower_whe el.html


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Ftork-grip.html


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fsymspoke.html

***

But the quackometer detects even the faintest whiff of chicanery. I
regret to say that it criticizes Sheldon's article on saddles quite
sternly, mincing no words at all:

"This web site is using alternative medicine terms. It is throwing in
some scientific jargon and may be doing this to give an appearance of
knowledgablity. It shows no sceptical awareness and so should be
treated with a suspicious mind. It also looks like this site is trying
to sell stuff. Buyer Beware!"


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Freal-man.html

Sometimes a quackometer pegs the irony needle.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Brian Huntley]

On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
>
> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
>
> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth and
> lore about bicycles for me!
>
> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
[snip]

Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
the QoM's fuses.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:00:34 -0700, Brian Huntley
<brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
>>
>> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
>>
>> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth and
>> lore about bicycles for me!
>>
>> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
>> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
>> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
>[snip]
>
>Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
>order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
>the QoM's fuses.

Dear Brian,

That was the haphazard order of my testing, though I did drop the
quackometer's faint suspicions concerning Product W:

"Could be average quack fodder. This web site has quite a bit of
loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. However,
it shows some possibility of critical thinking - but proceed with
care. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer
Beware!"


http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fw.html

Possibly the quackometer isn't calibrated critically enough to turn
candy upside-down?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[* * Chas]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:710jh3pn66rjgjiteff1f5haa991d2qavs@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:00:34 -0700, Brian Huntley
> <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
> >>
> >> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
> >>
> >> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth
and
> >> lore about bicycles for me!
> >>
> >> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
> >> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
> >> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
> >[snip]
> >
> >Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
> >order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
> >the QoM's fuses.
>
> Dear Brian,
>
> That was the haphazard order of my testing, though I did drop the
> quackometer's faint suspicions concerning Product W:
>
> "Could be average quack fodder. This web site has quite a bit of
> loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. However,
> it shows some possibility of critical thinking - but proceed with
> care. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer
> Beware!"
>
>
> http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fw.html
>
> Possibly the quackometer isn't calibrated critically enough to turn
> candy upside-down?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
NG...

Chas.
Don't believe what you know....

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:59:40 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:

>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:710jh3pn66rjgjiteff1f5haa991d2qavs@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:00:34 -0700, Brian Huntley
>> <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
>> >>
>> >> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth
>and
>> >> lore about bicycles for me!
>> >>
>> >> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
>> >> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
>> >> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
>> >order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
>> >the QoM's fuses.
>>
>> Dear Brian,
>>
>> That was the haphazard order of my testing, though I did drop the
>> quackometer's faint suspicions concerning Product W:
>>
>> "Could be average quack fodder. This web site has quite a bit of
>> loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. However,
>> it shows some possibility of critical thinking - but proceed with
>> care. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer
>> Beware!"
>>
>>
>> http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fw.html
>>
>> Possibly the quackometer isn't calibrated critically enough to turn
>> candy upside-down?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
>NG...
>
>Chas.
>Don't believe what you know....

Dear Chas,

http://quackometer.net/?suspectquack=carl+fogel

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Oct 19, 11:59 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:710jh3pn66rjgjiteff1f5haa991d2qavs@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:00:34 -0700, Brian Huntley
> > <brian_hunt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Oct 19, 9:05 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > >> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
>
> > >> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
>
> > >> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth
> and
> > >> lore about bicycles for me!
>
> > >> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
> > >> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
> > >> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
> > >[snip]
>
> > >Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
> > >order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
> > >the QoM's fuses.
>
> > Dear Brian,
>
> > That was the haphazard order of my testing, though I did drop the
> > quackometer's faint suspicions concerning Product W:
>
> > "Could be average quack fodder. This web site has quite a bit of
> > loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. However,
> > it shows some possibility of critical thinking - but proceed with
> > care. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer
> > Beware!"
>
> >http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fw.html
>
> > Possibly the quackometer isn't calibrated critically enough to turn
> > candy upside-down?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Carl Fogel
>
> It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
> NG...
>
> Chas.
> Don't believe what you know....

I thought about submitting the home site of the Ruffy-Tuffy, Rolly-
Poly and Cutesy-Wootsey, but I don't want the Quackometer to
explode! ;-)

[A Muzi]

>>>carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> This site promises to analyze web sites for quackery:
>>>> http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quackometer
>>>> Marvelous! A quackometer will automate my skepticism and spot myth
> and
>>>> lore about bicycles for me!
>>>> Naturally, I tested the quackometer on the petrified truth of the
>>>> bicycle world. Reassuringly, four of Sheldon's most famous articles
>>>> passed the test with flying colors, each receiving this analysis:
>>> [snip]

>> Brian Huntley <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Excellent choice of quackometer fodder! Did you analyse them in the
>>> order shown? I'd have figured the Symmetrispokes bit would have blown
>>> the QoM's fuses.

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote
>> That was the haphazard order of my testing, though I did drop the
>> quackometer's faint suspicions concerning Product W:
>> "Could be average quack fodder. This web site has quite a bit of
>> loosely defined terms and possibly pseudoscientific language. However,
>> it shows some possibility of critical thinking - but proceed with
>> care. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer
>> Beware!"
>> http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsheldonbrown.com%2Fw.html
>> Possibly the quackometer isn't calibrated critically enough to turn
>> candy upside-down?

* * Chas wrote:
> It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
> NG...
> Don't believe what you know....

"Who would you believe, me or your own lying eyes?" - Groucho
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[* * Chas]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i3jh3ljk4asp0ot2po075756q6defqosr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:59:40 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> >It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
> >NG...
> >
> >Chas.
> >Don't believe what you know....
>
> Dear Chas,
>
> http://quackometer.net/?suspectquack=carl+fogel
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl, 522 possible, 0 ducks, no cigar for you.

By the way, I would never question your veracity.... ;-)

Chas.

[datakoll]

COULTHARD STRANDED IN MIAMI

[datakoll]

On Oct 20, 9:21 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> COULTHARD STRANDED IN MIAMI

awww it doesn't do

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[Tom Sherman]

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:21 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> COULTHARD STRANDED IN MIAMI
>
> awww it doesn't do
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
Look how well things have turned out!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[datakoll]

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=logic&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=analysis+of+propaganda&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=advertising&spell=1&oi=spell

[* * Chas]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13hk6ia6gn353f1@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> > It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in
this
> > NG...
> > Don't believe what you know....
>
> "Who would you believe, me or your own lying eyes?" - Groucho
> --

You can trust me because I never lie and I'm always right....

Chas.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:20:25 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:

>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3i3jh3ljk4asp0ot2po075756q6defqosr@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:59:40 -0700, "* * Chas"
>> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>> >It's too bad that you can't use it to test a contentious poster in this
>> >NG...
>> >
>> >Chas.
>> >Don't believe what you know....
>>
>> Dear Chas,
>>
>> http://quackometer.net/?suspectquack=carl+fogel
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl, 522 possible, 0 ducks, no cigar for you.
>
>By the way, I would never question your veracity.... ;-)
>
>Chas.

Dear Chas,

Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the quackometer is, doesn't it?

It fails to notice that the petrified man is winking and thumbing his
nose at Twain's readers:

"This web site looks OK - but keep your guard up and don't rely on the
black duck to spot all quackery!"


http://quackometer.net/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twainquotes.com%2F18621004t. html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[still me]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:25:55 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
>Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the quackometer is, doesn't it?
>
>It fails to notice that the petrified man is winking and thumbing his
>nose at Twain's readers:
>
>"This web site looks OK - but keep your guard up and don't rely on the
>black duck to spot all quackery!"

Really! It even gives whitehouse.gov a passing grade.