A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Get active in Norfolk



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 07, 10:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Get active in Norfolk

Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003
Ads
  #2  
Old March 3rd 07, 09:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
vernon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 503
Default Get active in Norfolk


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


Shoot the copy writer.


  #3  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
bookieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.

Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.

Ho hum,

bookieb

  #4  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:55 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
bookieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin

wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.

Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.

Ho hum,

bookieb


No, sod it anyway, the more I though about it, the more it annoyed me.

This missive just dispatched to:

*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your web page located at:

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...itle=Cy cling

To someone considering taking up cycling, or coming back to back to it
after a few years off, the wording of this page is off-putting.

The article is 224 words long. 40 words are positive [1], 46 words
are neutral, or convey a mixed message [2].

The remainer of the article (138 words) is entirely negative in tone.
Specifically, the following suggestions are made:

1. Cycling may be unsuitable for office workers.
2. Cycling may be unsuitable for those who work sitting down.
3. Cycling may cause or exacebate rounded shoulders, and/or a stoop.
4. Cycling may cause or exacerbate a sore neck or back ache.
5. Cycling may cause twisted knee and ankle joints
6. "An excessive amount of cycling" may cause infertility in males.

Can you provide any reputable references or evidence for any of the
above suggestions?

If the objective of this page to encourage people to consider cycling
as a means of enjoying some exercise, I would suggest that you might
consider reviewing its tone and content. Many websites and
publications with similar aims to your own put a general caveat around
suggestions for particular forms of exercise, e.g. "you should consult
your Doctor before begininng on this or any progam of exercise" .

I agree wholeheartedly with you aims and intentions of encouraging
fitness and phyical activity in Norfolk, but I fell that this page is
more likely to cause people to sink back onto the couch than anything
else.


Yours sincerely,

name removed for usenet

[1]:
"In general, cycling, even for quite short periods, will bring
positive health benefits. "
"Now you can find your local cycle paths and have some fun - no need
to call it exercise, but your health will take a leap forward."

[2]
"An excellent exercise for many people, but not for everyone. "
"Now for some positive slants: visiting a good bike shop and not
leaving until the resident expert has helped you to set your bike up
to suit you will make the whole experience much more enjoyable."
*** Ends ***

These people are (presumably) using public money to produce and
distribute this content - it should be of a higher standard than it
currently is.

Grrr.. shakes fist angrily

bookieb

  #5  
Old March 3rd 07, 12:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Get active in Norfolk

On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb"
wrote:

On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin

wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.

Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.

Ho hum,

bookieb


No, sod it anyway, the more I though about it, the more it annoyed me.

This missive just dispatched to:

*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your web page located at:

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...itle=Cy cling

To someone considering taking up cycling, or coming back to back to it
after a few years off, the wording of this page is off-putting.

The article is 224 words long. 40 words are positive [1], 46 words
are neutral, or convey a mixed message [2].

The remainer of the article (138 words) is entirely negative in tone.
Specifically, the following suggestions are made:

1. Cycling may be unsuitable for office workers.
2. Cycling may be unsuitable for those who work sitting down.
3. Cycling may cause or exacebate rounded shoulders, and/or a stoop.
4. Cycling may cause or exacerbate a sore neck or back ache.
5. Cycling may cause twisted knee and ankle joints
6. "An excessive amount of cycling" may cause infertility in males.

Can you provide any reputable references or evidence for any of the
above suggestions?

If the objective of this page to encourage people to consider cycling
as a means of enjoying some exercise, I would suggest that you might
consider reviewing its tone and content. Many websites and
publications with similar aims to your own put a general caveat around
suggestions for particular forms of exercise, e.g. "you should consult
your Doctor before begininng on this or any progam of exercise" .

I agree wholeheartedly with you aims and intentions of encouraging
fitness and phyical activity in Norfolk, but I fell that this page is
more likely to cause people to sink back onto the couch than anything
else.


Yours sincerely,

name removed for usenet

[1]:
"In general, cycling, even for quite short periods, will bring
positive health benefits. "
"Now you can find your local cycle paths and have some fun - no need
to call it exercise, but your health will take a leap forward."

[2]
"An excellent exercise for many people, but not for everyone. "
"Now for some positive slants: visiting a good bike shop and not
leaving until the resident expert has helped you to set your bike up
to suit you will make the whole experience much more enjoyable."
*** Ends ***

These people are (presumably) using public money to produce and
distribute this content - it should be of a higher standard than it
currently is.

Grrr.. shakes fist angrily


My email was a little more direct.

==========

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Crispin
Sent: 02 March 2007 22:59
To: '
Subject: Your website

Your page on cycling is simply pathetic.


==========
  #6  
Old March 4th 07, 04:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
John Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 885
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mar 3, 6:55 am, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" wrote:



On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin


wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.


Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.


Ho hum,


bookieb


No, sod it anyway, the more I though about it, the more it annoyed me.

This missive just dispatched to:

*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your web page located at:

http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...00300060003&it...

To someone considering taking up cycling, or coming back to back to it
after a few years off, the wording of this page is off-putting.

The article is 224 words long. 40 words are positive [1], 46 words
are neutral, or convey a mixed message [2].

The remainer of the article (138 words) is entirely negative in tone.
Specifically, the following suggestions are made:

1. Cycling may be unsuitable for office workers.
2. Cycling may be unsuitable for those who work sitting down.
3. Cycling may cause or exacebate rounded shoulders, and/or a stoop.
4. Cycling may cause or exacerbate a sore neck or back ache.
5. Cycling may cause twisted knee and ankle joints
6. "An excessive amount of cycling" may cause infertility in males.

Can you provide any reputable references or evidence for any of the
above suggestions?

If the objective of this page to encourage people to consider cycling
as a means of enjoying some exercise, I would suggest that you might
consider reviewing its tone and content. Many websites and
publications with similar aims to your own put a general caveat around
suggestions for particular forms of exercise, e.g. "you should consult
your Doctor before begininng on this or any progam of exercise" .

I agree wholeheartedly with you aims and intentions of encouraging
fitness and phyical activity in Norfolk, but I fell that this page is
more likely to cause people to sink back onto the couch than anything
else.

Yours sincerely,

name removed for usenet

[1]:
"In general, cycling, even for quite short periods, will bring
positive health benefits. "
"Now you can find your local cycle paths and have some fun - no need
to call it exercise, but your health will take a leap forward."

[2]
"An excellent exercise for many people, but not for everyone. "
"Now for some positive slants: visiting a good bike shop and not
leaving until the resident expert has helped you to set your bike up
to suit you will make the whole experience much more enjoyable."
*** Ends ***

These people are (presumably) using public money to produce and
distribute this content - it should be of a higher standard than it
currently is.

Grrr.. shakes fist angrily

bookieb


It would certainly scare me off cycling.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

  #7  
Old March 5th 07, 01:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
bookieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mar 3, 12:36 pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb"
wrote:



On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin


wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.


Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.


Ho hum,


bookieb


No, sod it anyway, the more I though about it, the more it annoyed me.


This missive just dispatched to:


*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,


I refer to your web page located at:


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...00300060003&it...


To someone considering taking up cycling, or coming back to back to it
after a few years off, the wording of this page is off-putting.


The article is 224 words long. 40 words are positive [1], 46 words
are neutral, or convey a mixed message [2].


The remainer of the article (138 words) is entirely negative in tone.
Specifically, the following suggestions are made:


1. Cycling may be unsuitable for office workers.
2. Cycling may be unsuitable for those who work sitting down.
3. Cycling may cause or exacebate rounded shoulders, and/or a stoop.
4. Cycling may cause or exacerbate a sore neck or back ache.
5. Cycling may cause twisted knee and ankle joints
6. "An excessive amount of cycling" may cause infertility in males.


Can you provide any reputable references or evidence for any of the
above suggestions?


If the objective of this page to encourage people to consider cycling
as a means of enjoying some exercise, I would suggest that you might
consider reviewing its tone and content. Many websites and
publications with similar aims to your own put a general caveat around
suggestions for particular forms of exercise, e.g. "you should consult
your Doctor before begininng on this or any progam of exercise" .


I agree wholeheartedly with you aims and intentions of encouraging
fitness and phyical activity in Norfolk, but I fell that this page is
more likely to cause people to sink back onto the couch than anything
else.


Yours sincerely,


name removed for usenet


[1]:
"In general, cycling, even for quite short periods, will bring
positive health benefits. "
"Now you can find your local cycle paths and have some fun - no need
to call it exercise, but your health will take a leap forward."


[2]
"An excellent exercise for many people, but not for everyone. "
"Now for some positive slants: visiting a good bike shop and not
leaving until the resident expert has helped you to set your bike up
to suit you will make the whole experience much more enjoyable."
*** Ends ***


These people are (presumably) using public money to produce and
distribute this content - it should be of a higher standard than it
currently is.


Grrr.. shakes fist angrily


My email was a little more direct.

==========

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Crispin
Sent: 02 March 2007 22:59
To: '
Subject: Your website


Your page on cycling is simply pathetic.


==========




Yours is bang on what I think, but I was *trying* to be
constructive :-)

Let's see if it gets changed...

Regads,

bookieb


  #8  
Old March 5th 07, 01:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
bookieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mar 5, 1:29 pm, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:36 pm, Tom Crispin



wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb"
wrote:


On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin


wrote:
Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...01000300060003


In fairness, I don't think it's an anti-cycling bias. I'm choosing to
put this one down to ignorance rather than mailce.


Much of the rest of the site is filled with content of a similar
"quality", but presented as fact.


Ho hum,


bookieb


No, sod it anyway, the more I though about it, the more it annoyed me.


This missive just dispatched to:


*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,


I refer to your web page located at:


http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...00300060003&it...


To someone considering taking up cycling, or coming back to back to it
after a few years off, the wording of this page is off-putting.


The article is 224 words long. 40 words are positive [1], 46 words
are neutral, or convey a mixed message [2].


The remainer of the article (138 words) is entirely negative in tone.
Specifically, the following suggestions are made:


1. Cycling may be unsuitable for office workers.
2. Cycling may be unsuitable for those who work sitting down.
3. Cycling may cause or exacebate rounded shoulders, and/or a stoop.
4. Cycling may cause or exacerbate a sore neck or back ache.
5. Cycling may cause twisted knee and ankle joints
6. "An excessive amount of cycling" may cause infertility in males.


Can you provide any reputable references or evidence for any of the
above suggestions?


If the objective of this page to encourage people to consider cycling
as a means of enjoying some exercise, I would suggest that you might
consider reviewing its tone and content. Many websites and
publications with similar aims to your own put a general caveat around
suggestions for particular forms of exercise, e.g. "you should consult
your Doctor before begininng on this or any progam of exercise" .


I agree wholeheartedly with you aims and intentions of encouraging
fitness and phyical activity in Norfolk, but I fell that this page is
more likely to cause people to sink back onto the couch than anything
else.


Yours sincerely,


name removed for usenet


[1]:
"In general, cycling, even for quite short periods, will bring
positive health benefits. "
"Now you can find your local cycle paths and have some fun - no need
to call it exercise, but your health will take a leap forward."


[2]
"An excellent exercise for many people, but not for everyone. "
"Now for some positive slants: visiting a good bike shop and not
leaving until the resident expert has helped you to set your bike up
to suit you will make the whole experience much more enjoyable."
*** Ends ***


These people are (presumably) using public money to produce and
distribute this content - it should be of a higher standard than it
currently is.


Grrr.. shakes fist angrily


My email was a little more direct.


==========


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Crispin
Sent: 02 March 2007 22:59
To: '
Subject: Your website


Your page on cycling is simply pathetic.


==========


Yours is bang on what I think, but I was *trying* to be
constructive :-)

Let's see if it gets changed...

Regads,

bookieb


Page is gone 404 - presumably to be updated?

That was quick!

bookieb

  #9  
Old March 5th 07, 05:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mike Causer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default Get active in Norfolk

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:51:58 -0800, bookieb wrote:

Page is gone 404 - presumably to be updated?


Now moved to:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...itle=Cy cling

AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.


That was quick!


Indeed.


Mike
  #10  
Old March 5th 07, 06:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Get active in Norfolk

On 5 Mar 2007 17:38:20 GMT, Mike Causer
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:51:58 -0800, bookieb wrote:

Page is gone 404 - presumably to be updated?


Now moved to:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.as...itle=Cy cling

AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.


It's very close to billiant.

That was quick!


Indeed.


Indeed, indeed!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most definitely not in Norfolk... David Martin UK 0 August 15th 05 11:43 PM
Norfolk Martin Bulmer UK 14 July 20th 04 10:13 PM
Chat active now. yoopers Unicycling 4 March 20th 04 12:10 AM
Rides in Norfolk Steph Peters UK 2 September 16th 03 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.