Cycling splintered on Usenet

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 | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/

In article ,
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

On 16 Dec 2003 00:42:59 GMT,
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

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

"Hunrobe" wrote in message
...


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.

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

wrote in message
...
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.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
..

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

Tom Sherman

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

Hunrobe 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 | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/