Sentimental value... hu... and things don't appreciate in value unless they are collectors, classics, or demand cannot keep up with supply.... So what kind of bike is it btw?

 

What does it matter what kind of bike it is? Do you know my brother? I don't think you do...


Its a Suzuki GS 450. It is a classic and worth more than he paid for it because he didn't pay much. It was his first bike and he has no interest in selling it.

I don't know why you are so interested, do you question my statements about his bike?

I said it is not for sale and you keep going on about it without knowing the first thing about it.

 

.

 

Thats why I asked what kind of bike it is! I dunno if thats thought of to be a classic or not, but its a pretty decent looking bike for 80's bike.
The reason I ask is because you made an example of your brother saying he has a bike he never rides, that is both registered and insured... If this is true, I don't know but I'll take your word for it. I just can't for the life of me understand why a person would continue spending money, even if only $100 a year registering and insuring a vehicle that he does not ride? The second thing I don't understand is why you would have a motorcycle and not ride IF its registered and insured. IMO its abuse to the bike in the form of neglect. Motorcycles were made to ride on, and not doing that, to me is a waste, even if it is a "classic". To be honest if he really hasn't used her in two years at all, she probably needs the gas tank cleaned and the carbs rebuilt, which would be another reason not to have her insured and registered because she's probably not running anyways...

 

In the automotive world anything over 25 years is a classic and anything over 50 is an antique. Doesn't make it a desired classic, but thats a different discussion.

It may be a waste to you, but you don't own the bike, he does. The bike actually is apart right now due to a rust spot on the gas tank and to have the carb rebuilt, its happening a bit slower than he planned.

 

Fallacy in, its most common, accepted, and simple meaning in the diction of the region, is a statement that is not true. You can quote the dictionary all you want and quote its multiple meanings. I don't care. Truth is that in its most accepted meaning stating that the statistics were based on fallacy is infact a fallacy itself.

When reading statistical data you should account for a margin of error and assume that everyone else reading the data realizes that no statement is set in stone as 100% pure non-debatable information. The statistics are, however, the most accurate pieces of information used in order to research a set of reoccuring events.

The statistics were 100% accurate for what they were measuring and that is the number of registered motorcycles that have been in involved in fatal and non-fatal accidents that were officially recorded by insurance companies and or police departments. If you think that the "margin of error" (which again is the term you are looking for to explain the tendency of the statistics to not include every variable) is too much to accept the statements then fine, again I don't care.

What you are trying to say is that you don't buy the entire post. So please, say that instead of quoting the dictionary and getting so technical that you actually make this thread even more boring than it already was. Let's stop going around in circles and either accept some of the stats or don't ok?

 

your right
this thread is boring as fuck

 

So now you question the meaning of fallacy after I show you the definition of it? I am done because you are a bit mentally challenged.

 

And you're a bit of a faggot who says they're not trying to argue and then proceeds to do exactly the opposite. Just either say I agree with the OP or I don't. It really is that simple.

 

By all you mean rider or not? Because I thought you had to take it if you had a class M license in the military. If they are making EVERYBODY take it I'm seeing a lot of injuries and a lot of trouble coming out of that.