T
V
vernon
Guest
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
Shoot the copy writer.
news:[email protected]...
> Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
Shoot the copy writer.
B
bookieb
Guest
On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
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
B
bookieb
Guest
On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> 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: [email protected]
*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to your web page located at:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&itemTitle=Cycling
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
> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> 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: [email protected]
*** Begins ***
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to your web page located at:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&itemTitle=Cycling
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
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>>
>> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>>
>> 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: [email protected]
>
>*** Begins ***
>Dear Sir/Madam,
>
>I refer to your web page located at:
>
>http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&itemTitle=Cycling
>
>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: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Your website
>
> Your page on cycling is simply pathetic.
==========
wrote:
>On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>>
>> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>>
>> 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: [email protected]
>
>*** Begins ***
>Dear Sir/Madam,
>
>I refer to your web page located at:
>
>http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&itemTitle=Cycling
>
>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: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Your website
>
> Your page on cycling is simply pathetic.
==========
J
John Kane
Guest
On Mar 3, 6:55 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> > >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> > 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: [email protected]
>
> *** Begins ***
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I refer to your web page located at:
>
> http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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
> On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> > >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> > 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: [email protected]
>
> *** Begins ***
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I refer to your web page located at:
>
> http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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
B
bookieb
Guest
On Mar 3, 12:36 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> >> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> >> 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: [email protected]
>
> >*** Begins ***
> >Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> >I refer to your web page located at:
>
> >http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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: '[email protected]'
> > 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
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> >> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> >> 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: [email protected]
>
> >*** Begins ***
> >Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> >I refer to your web page located at:
>
> >http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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: '[email protected]'
> > 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
B
bookieb
Guest
On Mar 5, 1:29 pm, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:36 pm, Tom Crispin
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> > >> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> > >> 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: [email protected]
>
> > >*** Begins ***
> > >Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> > >I refer to your web page located at:
>
> > >http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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: '[email protected]'
> > > 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
> On Mar 3, 12:36 pm, Tom Crispin
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2007 03:55:11 -0800, "bookieb" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 3, 11:19 am, "bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 2, 10:56 pm, Tom Crispin
>
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Stolen fron the CTC Newsnet.
>
> > >> >www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003
>
> > >> 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: [email protected]
>
> > >*** Begins ***
> > >Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> > >I refer to your web page located at:
>
> > >http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060003&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: '[email protected]'
> > > 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
M
Mike Causer
Guest
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.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
> That was quick!
Indeed.
Mike
> Page is gone 404 - presumably to be updated?
Now moved to:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/page.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
> That was quick!
Indeed.
Mike
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On 5 Mar 2007 17:38:20 GMT, Mike Causer
<[email protected]> 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.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
>
>AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
It's very close to billiant.
>> That was quick!
>
>Indeed.
Indeed, indeed!
<[email protected]> 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.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
>
>AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
It's very close to billiant.
>> That was quick!
>
>Indeed.
Indeed, indeed!
N
Nigel Cliffe
Guest
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.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
>
> AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
Can't specifically see a problem with it.
Facts seem sound to me.
Avoids the main contraversies (helmets, whether roads are safe or not,
cyclepaths, etc. ).
>> That was quick!
>
> Indeed.
Yes, surprised, but pleasantly surprised.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
> 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.asp?section=00010001000300060005&itemTitle=Cycling
>
> AND updated! It's not brilliant, but it's better.
Can't specifically see a problem with it.
Facts seem sound to me.
Avoids the main contraversies (helmets, whether roads are safe or not,
cyclepaths, etc. ).
>> That was quick!
>
> Indeed.
Yes, surprised, but pleasantly surprised.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:57:52 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> That was quick!
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>Yes, surprised, but pleasantly surprised.
http://tinyurl.com/3y7hdf
from:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/news.a...ve+Norfolk+Receives+the+Wooden+Spoon+from+CTC
wrote:
>>> That was quick!
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>Yes, surprised, but pleasantly surprised.
http://tinyurl.com/3y7hdf
from:
http://www.activenorfolk.org/news.a...ve+Norfolk+Receives+the+Wooden+Spoon+from+CTC
Similar threads
