Elyob
It's lethal out there ...
TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)
View Full Version : TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)
Pages :
[1]
2
Garry Broad
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:33 GMT, "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's lethal out there ...
>
what tyres are you using?
<g>
gb
>It's lethal out there ...
>
what tyres are you using?
<g>
gb
Peter B
"elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> It's lethal out there ...
But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
Pete
news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> It's lethal out there ...
But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
Pete
Elyob
"Garry Broad" <somebloke@internet.com> wrote in message
news:ng55iv0jllonjajcdklhmp385m435dds3v@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:33 GMT, "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's lethal out there ...
> >
>
> what tyres are you using?
> <g>
I'm not sure I'm going to be putting vinegar all over my tyres (as the commentators reckoned the
tour cyclists do) ;)
news:ng55iv0jllonjajcdklhmp385m435dds3v@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:33 GMT, "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's lethal out there ...
> >
>
> what tyres are you using?
> <g>
I'm not sure I'm going to be putting vinegar all over my tyres (as the commentators reckoned the
tour cyclists do) ;)
Elyob
"Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bfu61g$a7m$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > It's lethal out there ...
>
> But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
Yup fantastic news. I thought Ullrich was going to skid on his bum all the way to the
finish line ....
>
> "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > It's lethal out there ...
>
> But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
Yup fantastic news. I thought Ullrich was going to skid on his bum all the way to the
finish line ....
Elyob
"Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bfu61g$a7m$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > It's lethal out there ...
>
> But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
Hmm ... it's pretty ****ing cool ... straight from the horse's mouth.
>
> "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > It's lethal out there ...
>
> But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
Hmm ... it's pretty ****ing cool ... straight from the horse's mouth.
Garry Broad
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:17:05 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> It's lethal out there ...
>
>But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn sight
quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which would make him
pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with
the very best of them?
gb
>
>"elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:huwUa.4352$N_7.38977636@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> It's lethal out there ...
>
>But Millar takes it!!!!!! :-)
>
I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn sight
quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which would make him
pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with
the very best of them?
gb
Just Zis Guy
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:41:11 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with the very best of them?
I don't think he'll win the Tour - next year my money is on Hamilton or Vinokourov - but I can see
him as a regular on the podium in the near future. But I know bugger all about cycle racing, I just
watch it on the telly ;-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
>is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with the very best of them?
I don't think he'll win the Tour - next year my money is on Hamilton or Vinokourov - but I can see
him as a regular on the podium in the near future. But I know bugger all about cycle racing, I just
watch it on the telly ;-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Tony W
"Garry Broad" <somebloke@internet.com> wrote in message
news:c1f5iv0k70f3ojna09njki2fg0ukjcvcpc@4ax.com...
> >
>
> I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who cannot
handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn
> sight quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which would
> make him pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he
> rank with the very best of them?
The consensus seems to be that he has most of the physical attributes but is not dedicated enough to
put in the work day in, day out.
Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
illness or maturity that made the difference?
Millar could wake up one morning and realise he has the necessary kit of parts to do it and knuckle
down to the grunt work to make it reality.
T
news:c1f5iv0k70f3ojna09njki2fg0ukjcvcpc@4ax.com...
> >
>
> I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who cannot
handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn
> sight quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which would
> make him pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he
> rank with the very best of them?
The consensus seems to be that he has most of the physical attributes but is not dedicated enough to
put in the work day in, day out.
Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
illness or maturity that made the difference?
Millar could wake up one morning and realise he has the necessary kit of parts to do it and knuckle
down to the grunt work to make it reality.
T
Lbockhed
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:vtg5ivkivd0sur0vi0lhsg5s3q4t59muog@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:41:11 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>
> >is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with the very best
> >of them?
>
> I don't think he'll win the Tour - next year my money is on Hamilton or Vinokourov - but I can see
> him as a regular on the podium in the near future. But I know bugger all about cycle racing, I
> just watch it on the telly ;-)
>
no next year Cadel Evans
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
> offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
news:vtg5ivkivd0sur0vi0lhsg5s3q4t59muog@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:41:11 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>
> >is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How does he rank with the very best
> >of them?
>
> I don't think he'll win the Tour - next year my money is on Hamilton or Vinokourov - but I can see
> him as a regular on the podium in the near future. But I know bugger all about cycle racing, I
> just watch it on the telly ;-)
>
no next year Cadel Evans
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
> offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Elyob
"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfuiar$irkse$1@ID-161007.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Garry Broad" <somebloke@internet.com> wrote in message
> news:c1f5iv0k70f3ojna09njki2fg0ukjcvcpc@4ax.com...
> > >
> >
> > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
>
> That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> >
> > So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn
> > sight quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which
> > would make him pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How
> > does he rank with the very best of them?
>
>
> The consensus seems to be that he has most of the physical attributes but
is
> not dedicated enough to put in the work day in, day out.
>
> Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
> illness or maturity that made the difference?
>
> Millar could wake up one morning and realise he has the necessary kit of parts to do it and
> knuckle down to the grunt work to make it reality.
>
He's a jockey, not a rider IMHO. Fantastically quick, will never win 'the race'. I'm more interested
in Nicole Cooke in cycling.
news:bfuiar$irkse$1@ID-161007.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Garry Broad" <somebloke@internet.com> wrote in message
> news:c1f5iv0k70f3ojna09njki2fg0ukjcvcpc@4ax.com...
> > >
> >
> > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
>
> That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> >
> > So tell me people, you knowledgeable ones of the 'racing boys', how good is David Millar? Damn
> > sight quicker than me that's for sure, and obviously good enough to win today's heat (which
> > would make him pretty damn hot), but is he good enough to take the crown outright some day? How
> > does he rank with the very best of them?
>
>
> The consensus seems to be that he has most of the physical attributes but
is
> not dedicated enough to put in the work day in, day out.
>
> Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
> illness or maturity that made the difference?
>
> Millar could wake up one morning and realise he has the necessary kit of parts to do it and
> knuckle down to the grunt work to make it reality.
>
He's a jockey, not a rider IMHO. Fantastically quick, will never win 'the race'. I'm more interested
in Nicole Cooke in cycling.
Iddqdatworldonl
Tony W wrote:
> Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
> illness or maturity that made the difference?
>
Illness - he lost his excess bodyfat and managed to not get it back when recovering.
Kind regards
Bruno
> Maybe that will come. Armstrong was a bit of an enfant terrible until his illness. Was it the
> illness or maturity that made the difference?
>
Illness - he lost his excess bodyfat and managed to not get it back when recovering.
Kind regards
Bruno
Danny Colyer
Garry Broad wrote:
> > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
prompting Tony W to reply:
> That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
*But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post I
(like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the race.
For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the reader to
know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before having seen
the stage.
Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages spoiled
this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
> > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
prompting Tony W to reply:
> That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
*But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post I
(like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the race.
For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the reader to
know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before having seen
the stage.
Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages spoiled
this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
James Annan
Danny Colyer wrote:
> *But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post
> I (like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the
> race. For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the
> reader to know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before
> having seen the stage.
>
> Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages
> spoiled this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
James
> *But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post
> I (like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the
> race. For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the
> reader to know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before
> having seen the stage.
>
> Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages
> spoiled this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
James
Danny Colyer
James Annan wrote:
> Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
> would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
(Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you happen
to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
> Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
> would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
(Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you happen
to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
Elyob
"Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote in message news:bg0bmh$ku4$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> James Annan wrote:
> > Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
> > would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
>
> I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
> (Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you
> happen to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
>
My original message mentioned the weather conditions, which you can get anywhere. It says nothing
about who won, who raced, who fell off.... I don't think that knowing it was raining on the tour de
france was an issue. BTW, it's dry in Paris today.
> James Annan wrote:
> > Seems a bit bizarre to complain that the 'spoiler' header was not adequate warning - perhaps you
> > would rather it said 'spoiler, this post mentions that millar won the TT'?
>
> I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
> (Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you
> happen to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
>
My original message mentioned the weather conditions, which you can get anywhere. It says nothing
about who won, who raced, who fell off.... I don't think that knowing it was raining on the tour de
france was an issue. BTW, it's dry in Paris today.
Elyob
"Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote in message news:bg0a4t$qgi$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Garry Broad wrote:
> > > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
>
> prompting Tony W to reply:
> > That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> > cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> *But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post
> I (like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the
> race. For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the
> reader to know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before
> having seen the stage.
>
It had "TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)" as the title. Which bit didn't hint that it was about the tour
de france? I certainly thought TdF was a *huge* hint. Spoiler in the title is hinting that there is
a spolier in the thread, even though I didn't put one in. Knowing the weather was wet would have
made me race home in *huge* anticipation. Continuing to read the thread marked "spoiler" is pretty
stupid if you didn't want to know the result. I cannot help you with that problem.
> Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages
> spoiled this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
>
How about having a practice today ... ? Don't want to spoil the result for you .. ooh, who'll win le
tour? I've had friends and family do spoilers, it's not just here you'll get them. I'd suggest
hiding in a large box until the ITV2 coverage starts.
> Garry Broad wrote:
> > > I really must learn to not log in here before 7.00pm and ITV2 :-)
>
> prompting Tony W to reply:
> > That's why it says Spoiler in the title -- as agreed for the benefit of those poor souls who
> > cannot handle knowing the result before watching the stage.
>
> *But* the title says nothing about it referring to a specific stage. After reading the first post
> I (like Garry, presumably) had concluded that, despite the header, it had nothing to do with the
> race. For the heading "Tour de Ducks" to tell us that it was about the TdF TT would require the
> reader to know something about the weather conditions during the stage, which is unlikely before
> having seen the stage.
>
It had "TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)" as the title. Which bit didn't hint that it was about the tour
de france? I certainly thought TdF was a *huge* hint. Spoiler in the title is hinting that there is
a spolier in the thread, even though I didn't put one in. Knowing the weather was wet would have
made me race home in *huge* anticipation. Continuing to read the thread marked "spoiler" is pretty
stupid if you didn't want to know the result. I cannot help you with that problem.
> Anyway, I've decided not to read urc during the TdF next year. I've just had too many stages
> spoiled this year by people not making clear in their headers that they're about to do it.
>
How about having a practice today ... ? Don't want to spoil the result for you .. ooh, who'll win le
tour? I've had friends and family do spoilers, it's not just here you'll get them. I'd suggest
hiding in a large box until the ITV2 coverage starts.
Danny Colyer
elyob wrote:
> It had "TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)" as the title. Which bit didn't hint that it was about the
> tour de france? I certainly thought TdF was a *huge* hint. Spoiler in the title is hinting that
> there is a spolier in the thread, even though I didn't put one in.
I know. I'm not blaming you. I don't really understand why you put spoiler in the header, given that
you didn't post a spoiler.
But you might notice that by the time Peter B posted the first actual spoiler, 'TdF' had been
removed from the header. Someone who had downloaded that post before yours would have had no way of
knowing that the thread related to the TdF.
> Continuing to read the thread marked "spoiler" is pretty stupid if you didn't want to know the
> result. I cannot help you with that problem.
The body of your post actually contained no hint that it referred to the TdF. To quote the entire
post: "It's lethal out there ..."
That sounds like someone who's just come in from a ride commenting on road conditions, with a
tantalising hint that there might be an interesting "w*nker in a car" story about to follow. Having
read that post, and concluded that despite the header it actually had nothing to do with the TdF,
why would I not continue?
> How about having a practice today ... ? Don't want to spoil the result for you .. ooh, who'll win
> le tour? I've had friends and family do spoilers, it's not just here you'll get them. I'd suggest
> hiding in a large box until the ITV2 coverage starts.
A lot of spoilers have come just from glancing at the BBC news website, which has tended to have
headlines along the lines of "Armstrong keeps yellow" or "Tyler takes it" on the front page :-(
The only relevance of the ITV2 coverage is that most spoilers have come from ITV2 viewers who forget
that a lot of people neither have nor want more than the 5 terrestrial analogue channels.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
> It had "TdF: Tour de Ducks (spoiler)" as the title. Which bit didn't hint that it was about the
> tour de france? I certainly thought TdF was a *huge* hint. Spoiler in the title is hinting that
> there is a spolier in the thread, even though I didn't put one in.
I know. I'm not blaming you. I don't really understand why you put spoiler in the header, given that
you didn't post a spoiler.
But you might notice that by the time Peter B posted the first actual spoiler, 'TdF' had been
removed from the header. Someone who had downloaded that post before yours would have had no way of
knowing that the thread related to the TdF.
> Continuing to read the thread marked "spoiler" is pretty stupid if you didn't want to know the
> result. I cannot help you with that problem.
The body of your post actually contained no hint that it referred to the TdF. To quote the entire
post: "It's lethal out there ..."
That sounds like someone who's just come in from a ride commenting on road conditions, with a
tantalising hint that there might be an interesting "w*nker in a car" story about to follow. Having
read that post, and concluded that despite the header it actually had nothing to do with the TdF,
why would I not continue?
> How about having a practice today ... ? Don't want to spoil the result for you .. ooh, who'll win
> le tour? I've had friends and family do spoilers, it's not just here you'll get them. I'd suggest
> hiding in a large box until the ITV2 coverage starts.
A lot of spoilers have come just from glancing at the BBC news website, which has tended to have
headlines along the lines of "Armstrong keeps yellow" or "Tyler takes it" on the front page :-(
The only relevance of the ITV2 coverage is that most spoilers have come from ITV2 viewers who forget
that a lot of people neither have nor want more than the 5 terrestrial analogue channels.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
James Annan
Danny Colyer wrote:
> I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
> (Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you
> happen to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
Well I guess you could complain the original message _didn't_ contain a spoiler that you were
obviously hoping to see (since you read the thread), or that the reference to the weather in the
subject line had ruined your fun. But I don't really think you can reasonably complain that thread
with 'TdF' and 'spoiler' in the subject line contains...a 'spoiler' about the 'TdF'.
BTW Lance won today! oops...it just slipped out...sorry!
James
> I would rather it mentioned which stage it contained a spoiler for. The main part of the header
> (Tour de Ducks) suggests that it might actually be something completely unrelated (unless you
> happen to know what the weather was like in France yesterday).
Well I guess you could complain the original message _didn't_ contain a spoiler that you were
obviously hoping to see (since you read the thread), or that the reference to the weather in the
subject line had ruined your fun. But I don't really think you can reasonably complain that thread
with 'TdF' and 'spoiler' in the subject line contains...a 'spoiler' about the 'TdF'.
BTW Lance won today! oops...it just slipped out...sorry!
James
Danny Colyer
James Annan wrote:
> But I don't really think you can reasonably complain that thread with 'TdF' and 'spoiler' in the
> subject line contains...a 'spoiler' about the 'TdF'.
Funnily enough, there was no spoiler in this thread that had 'TdF' in the subject line.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
> But I don't really think you can reasonably complain that thread with 'TdF' and 'spoiler' in the
> subject line contains...a 'spoiler' about the 'TdF'.
Funnily enough, there was no spoiler in this thread that had 'TdF' in the subject line.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0