On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 07:27:51 -0400, "Tim McTeague" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Knight wrote:
>>> there is a new seat that uses the same idea
http://www.saddleco.com/flowmain.html the few people
>>> I have read who have it love it even over a brooks. as it lets the saddle breath. if nothing
>>> else it is interesting.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t17855.html
>>
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> The above post by Steve Knight has nothing to do with my post, nor with my comment upon the
>> Brooks B17 or Champion Flyer. I have been irrelevantly referenced to some comment on saddleco;
>> unknown to me.
>>
>> Kindly be more careful with your use of associations, quotes, message replies, Steve.
>>
>> Bruce Ball
>
>Jeez, Bruce, take a pill. Steve was only suggesting a similar type of saddle, or at least a new
>approach. You are not the only one reading this thread and others may benefit from his
>observations. Usenet replies often go very far afield and at least this one stayed on comfortable
>saddles. Now that you are aware of Saddleco perhaps you could check it out. Who knows, it may be
>a better mousetrap. I sort of doubt it but I find more information beats less overall. To return
>to the thread, I tried a Brooks Swift and found the center section too hard on my perineum and
>sent it back. I now use a Fizik Aliante and like it a lot. Oh no, I mentioned another
>brand...don't get mad!
>
>Tim McTegue
>
---------------------
I didn't mean to explode on the matter, however Steve's message continued:
---------
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:17:30 -0600,
[email protected] wrote:
>
>there is a new seat that uses the same idea
http://www.saddleco.com/flowmain.html the few people I
>have read who have it love it even over a brooks. as it lets the saddle breath. if nothing else it
>is interesting.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t17855.html
-------------
As though I was promoting a new seat. And the "same idea" was non-existent in terms of the thread
discussion of the Brooks Champion Flyer and B17. I had not written the above, but anyone who reads
that would think so by structure. And it's unsigned.
We may benefit from Steve's welcome observations, but not when they're attributed to me via a
continuing ">" line presence. This wasn't a reply, this was a highjacking because replies don't
formulate with the same number of ">" symbols as the preceeding message. In fact, a current reply
has none at all. In other words, the above wasn't accomplished thru an email reply mechanism.
Visions of someone taking a ride on the spam saddle to which four tubes of superglue have
been applied.
Bruce Ball