Cycling splintered on Usenet - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

12-15-2003, 03:42 PM

Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:

alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
rec.sport.unicycling
fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
time to time

Anybody think this is an issue?

--
Risto Varanka | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

12-15-2003, 04:03 PM

In article <brlkej$23h$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].spam.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
>rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:
>
>alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>rec.sport.unicycling
>fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
>time to time
>
>Anybody think this is an issue?

Doesn't bother me at all. Leave well enough alone.

In my opinion the worst problem with rec.bicycles.* is the fact
that rec.bicycles.off-road is completely ruined. It would be best
to just delete it. (FYI I am one of the moderators.) If we could
unmoderate it I would support doing that. But we are left with a
situation where some news servers think it's moderated, others
don't, and we can't influence their choice one way or the other.
It's just hosed. There is nothing wrong with alt.mountain-bike,
so if you wanted to try to instigate any reorganization I would
suggest a vote on deleting rec.bicycles.off-road. Anyone posting
to rec.bicycles.off-road would be better off posting to
alt.mountain-bike.

From the Sad But True Department,

--Paul

12-15-2003, 04:35 PM

On 16 Dec 2003 00:42:59 GMT,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
>rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:
>
>alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>rec.sport.unicycling
>fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
>time to time
>
>Anybody think this is an issue?

Well, most of those are cycling, but not bicycling, so technically
don't belong under rec.bicycles. If it was rec.cycles...
--
Rick Onanian

12-15-2003, 04:47 PM

>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].spam.helsinki.fi

wrote:

>Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
>rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:
>
>alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>rec.sport.unicycling
>fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
>time to time
>
>Anybody think this is an issue?

Others may disagree but I think it's a non-issue because:
1- recumbents are interesting machines but they truly do belong in an "alt."
category,
2- by definition, unicycles aren't bicycles,
3- I don't cycle for fitness, per se. I ride simply because I love to ride.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

12-15-2003, 05:10 PM

"Hunrobe" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com...
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].spam.helsinki.fi
>
> wrote:
>
> >Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
> >rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:
> >
> >alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> >rec.sport.unicycling
> >fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
> >time to time
> >
> >Anybody think this is an issue?
>
> Others may disagree but I think it's a non-issue because:
> 1- recumbents are interesting machines but they truly do belong in an
"alt."
> category,
> 2- by definition, unicycles aren't bicycles,

> 3- I don't cycle for fitness, per se. I ride simply because I love to
ride.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

#3 might be an interesting thread topic.

12-15-2003, 05:25 PM

Hunrobe wrote:
>
> Others may disagree but I think it's a non-issue because:
> 1- recumbents are interesting machines but they truly do belong in an > "alt." category,

By definition (both British English and American English) a recumbent
with two wheels along a single track is still a bicycle. The UCI may
believe differently, but they are not arbiters of language.

> 2- by definition, unicycles aren't bicycles,

Bicycles are tandem unicycles.

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

12-15-2003, 05:48 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].spam.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:brlkej$23h$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> Seems not all cycling topics have been collected under
> rec.bicycles.*. For example, there is:
>
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> rec.sport.unicycling
> fitness groups where cycling - at least indoor cycling - comes up
> time to time
>
> Anybody think this is an issue?

Only people riding on wooden saddles.

Bill "splinter humor attempt" S.

12-15-2003, 08:11 PM

"Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:3FDE6D23.E82BD788@qconline.com...
..
>
> > 2- by definition, unicycles aren't bicycles,
>
> Bicycles are tandem unicycles.

>
> Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

Tandems are tandem unicycles. Bicycles have too many wheels/rider :-)

cheg 47 44N, 122 18W

12-15-2003, 11:01 PM

>Tom Sherman [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>Hunrobe wrote:
>>
>> Others may disagree but I think it's a non-issue because:
>> 1- recumbents are interesting machines but they truly do belong in an >
>"alt." category,
>
>By definition (both British English and American English) a recumbent
>with two wheels along a single track is still a bicycle. The UCI may
>believe differently, but they are not arbiters of language.
>
>> 2- by definition, unicycles aren't bicycles,
>
>Bicycles are tandem unicycles.

>
>Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

Why so touchy? I didn't say they weren't bicycles. I said they belong in an
"alt." category. Do you agree with that or are you going to claim that you
*don't* get a kick out of riding an out-of-the-ordinary machine?
BTW, operating under your rather sketchy definition scooters are also bicycles.
Will you defend scooter riders if they invade your 'bent group? ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

12-16-2003, 02:48 AM

Hunrobe <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote:

: 1- recumbents are interesting machines but they truly do belong in an "alt."
: category,

I see the alt.* category more as a technical or Usenet-related
political decision, not primarily an indicator of the subject
matter being alternative. So we could well have something like
rec.bicycles.alternative.recumbent :-)

Maybe our hierarchy should really be named rec.cycling.* - as our
topics include much beyond the actual vehicles, and also tricycles
now become a somewhat uneasy category

--
Risto Varanka | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]