On 25 Oct, 21:07, BrianW wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:18*am, Doug wrote:



On 24 Oct, 19:13, BrianW wrote:

On Oct 24, 8:24*am, Doug wrote:

Motorists on this newsgroup will maintain that however infrequently
they step out of their car and onto a bicycle and peddle just a bit,
that entitles them to denigrate cyclists to the full here.

OTOH purists here will maintain that the only 'real'cyclistis one
who never ever uses a car and regularly cycles quite long distances
instead.

I have an alternative compromise definition for this newsgroup in
particular.

'A realcyclistis one who sometimes cycles but always criticises
motorists much more than they criticise cyclists on this newsgroup.'

Would that be more acceptable do you think?

It's getting better, but may I suggest this alternative definition,
taken from the dictionary on my shelf: "cyclist- a person who rides a
bicycle".

Controversial, I know, but I think it works.

So you agree, the motorists who infest this NG have only to ride a
bicycle just once to then claimed to be a 'pure'cyclistwhich
empowers them to criticise cyclists to the full on this NG from the
POV of a motorist?

Ah, right, so you have to cycle regularly in order to be able to
criticise cyclists?

*Does the same principle apply to driving? *Do you
have to drive regularly in order to criticise motorists?

You don't understand do you. This is about the relative levels of
criticism. Note the use of the word 'full'.

Doug.