uk.rec.cycling vs. all the other cycling newsgroups

On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with one another
about everything and nothing. It is by far and away the most active cycling
newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor them from now on. Some of the other
cycling newsgroups are in fact dead for all practical purposes. I think the
English know how to keep an argument going and how not to take offence like
Americans do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like
that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally, cyclists
will defend themselves against such an unwarranted intrusion.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with one
another
about everything and nothing. It is by far and away the most active
cycling
newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor them from now on. Some of the
other
cycling newsgroups are in fact dead for all practical purposes. I think
the
English know how to keep an argument going and how not to take offence
like
Americans do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like
that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally, cyclists
will defend themselves against such an unwarranted intrusion.

I do not mind arguments about safety. It is the most critical aspect of
cycling after all.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with one another
about everything and nothing. It is by far and away the most active cycling
newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor them from now on. Some of the other
cycling newsgroups are in fact dead for all practical purposes. I think the
English know how to keep an argument going and how not to take offence like
Americans do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like
that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally, cyclists
will defend themselves against such an unwarranted intrusion.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".



Trying to twist a thread for your own ends again Doug?

--
Tony Dragon

On 12 Jan, 08:38, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with one another
about everything and nothing. It is by far and away the most active cycling
newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor them from now on. Some of the other
cycling newsgroups are in fact dead for all practical purposes. I think the
English know how to keep an argument going and how not to take offence like
Americans do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like
that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally, cyclists
will defend themselves against such an unwarranted intrusion.
".

Trying to twist a thread for your own ends again Doug?

You of course are a motorist aren't you, Tony. Why do you post to
cycling newsgroups?

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 08:38, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with
one another about everything and nothing. It is by far and away
the most active cycling newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor
them from now on. Some of the other cycling newsgroups are in fact
dead for all practical purposes. I think the English know how to
keep an argument going and how not to take offence like Americans
do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally,
cyclists will defend themselves against such an unwarranted
intrusion.
".

Trying to twist a thread for your own ends again Doug?

You of course are a motorist aren't you, Tony. Why do you post to
cycling newsgroups?

Because the function of the group is to 'discuss' cycling.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

On 13 Jan, 23:34, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 08:38, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 12 Jan, 01:09, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
I must admit I rather like uk.rec.cycling.These guys argue with
one another about everything and nothing. It is by far and away
the most active cycling newsgroup that I know of. I will monitor
them from now on. Some of the other cycling newsgroups are in fact
dead for all practical purposes. I think the English know how to
keep an argument going and how not to take offence like Americans
do if you say anything the least bit offensive. I really like that!

The reason this NG is so active is because it is infested with
motorists who seem intent on denigrating cyclists. Naturally,
cyclists will defend themselves against such an unwarranted
intrusion.
".

Trying to twist a thread for your own ends again Doug?

You of course are a motorist aren't you, Tony. Why do you post to
cycling newsgroups?

Because the function of the group is to 'discuss' cycling.

And not to try to advance the cause of motoring by denigrating
cyclists. On the other hand, it seems fair enough to me to discuss the
serious dangers presented to cyclists by motorists and other drivers
but which are not reciprocated by cyclists

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 13 Jan, 23:34, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Because the function of the group is to 'discuss' cycling.

And not to try to advance the cause of motoring by denigrating
cyclists. On the other hand, it seems fair enough to me to discuss the
serious dangers presented to cyclists by motorists and other drivers
but which are not reciprocated by cyclists

I suspect that Medway lacks experience of cycling so is unable to be of much
value.