Autofaq now on faster server

Also it has to be said I am one of the few
persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from
experience.

Actually, it has to be said that you are 9 parts clueless newbie and
almost everyone else here has far more experience than you. Not that
your views are unwelcome, but they would be better served without the
side order of chips on the shoulder.


How exactly does that work? I've got a chip on my shoulder
because....?

I'm a clueless newbie because I bought a cheap bike and its rather
nice to ride and seems ok after using it for about 1200-1400 miles.

Lets face it your saying I'm a clueless newbie and have a chip on my
shoulder because I disagree with you. The reason I disagree is based
on real evidence that is my own personal experience and also these
forums don't appear to be full of other cheap bike purchasers
complaining about their bikes. What you have replied with is simple
abuse. If thats all you have then so be it but its obviously not going
to convince me that cheap bikes are really bad. What would win your
argument is some real test cases, some brand and model names that have
been terrible. There surely has to be some data somewhere to make a
convincing case against cheap bikes. I remember universal/sterling had
some issues with bikes and they were featured on thats life. It was a
few years ago. Has there been anything else like this since?


Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point.

The FAQ is not a party to join or not. It is a document you can change,
just as easily as posting here.

James

It just seems to me that I don't share the general loathing of cheap
bikes on this forum and so amending the autofaq just doesn't seem
right somehow to amend it. It would be like me going to a wine
collecting forum and putting an amendment to their faq saying
'actually I think all wine is horrible and a waste of good grapes'. It
just doesn't seem fitting somehow.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:16:53 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote:

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point.

As other people have said, the AutoFAQ is not a political party. It's a
mutable public document which is the sum of the views of the members of
this group who have contributed to it at any given point in time. There
isn't any way I could make it more open or neutral. Neither I nor
anyone else has special editorial privilege.

If you don't want to take part, no-one's forcing you to. But you cannot
accuse the AutoFAQ of having any agenda or position. It's a blank wall
for anyone to write on, and if you refuse to add your views then you
cannot rationally complain that they are unrepresented.

If you think you can produce something better, please do so.

As a reminder to everyone, the AutoFAQ is he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/

As I've said before the autofaq does seem to represent the majority of
views expressed in this forum so makes a good document in expressing
the general views of forum members. I am not complaining about being
unrepresented in it. I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of
being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes.

You only have to read the responses to this thread to see how
agressively the forum joins together to disperse an invader with his
positive cheap bike comments.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:19:10 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote:

I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of
being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes.

You only have to read the responses to this thread to see how
agressively the forum joins together to disperse an invader with his
positive cheap bike comments.

If you prefer not to have to read negative opinions on cheap bikes
then why not visit uk.rec.xylophones? While you are there you may find
that even xylophone players have opposing views about
good/bad/expensive/cheap equipment. Such is life.

There are two sides to every story. Both yourself and others have
expressed opposing views, and that is the nature of discussion.

Why not contribute to the FAQ by stating *your* viewpoint?

--
Microsoft Sam speaks his mind:
www.artybee.net/sam_speaks_his_mind.mp3

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:34:45 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Martin Wilson wrote:

Surely you realise that you are also motivated and chippy enough to
also argue your point in a similar fashion so I can only conclude that
you are so egotistical and arrogent that you apply different rules to
other people than yourself.

But Guy /is/ willing to contribute to the FAQ as well as taking the time
to argue the toss about things here, so I'm afraid your argument rather
disappears up its own backside at this point...


Yes but he's contributing to a faq on a forum that his anti cheap
bikes. It seems to be part of the culture/ethos of this newsgroup to
do so. So I can't debate in the main forum because I haven't
contributed to the faq even though I don't like the faq in general and
don't want to add to it? If you ask me your backside is residing
between your two ears to make a comment like that.

Also it has to be said I am one of the few
persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from
experience.

"Actively riding", possibly, but the only person *ever* to ride one?
This is just /wrong/.


But you will agree that I am speaking from direct experience of such a
bike.

ot only that but I have no bias.

You are a person, therefore you have bias. If you don't think so then
that bias is probably towards kidding yourself.


Fine you go out of your way to say I have some secret bias etc and
that I'm kidding myself that I don't have bias but when it comes to
bikes I really don't think I have. I am not connected to the bicycle
industry at all in anyway. I have bikes of various price ranges upto a
maximum selling price of £600 (Giant). I don't see how I'm biased. I
don't believe I'm misleading or putting bias on anything. Is there any
statement I've said in my postings that you think is biased and why?

bikes and so a so called cheap brand bike. I am also not motivated by
any connections to the bicycle trade especially bicycle dealers. The
number of postings arguing against cheap bikes in this forum certainly
is greater than those for it so again the greater motivation/toss is
on the other side.

And how many of those who speak from experience about false economies
are connected with the bike trade? Not me, for a start.


Ok your viewpoint is that cheap bikes are a false econmony, presumably
you bought one and had a lot of trouble with it. Which model was it
and where was it bought? When was this and what actually failed?
Information like this would be really useful. Was it fully assembled
and tested like a halfords bike or a mail order bike needing final
assembly and adjustment. Maybe your viewpoint is that the bike
actually worked but was heavy and a poor cycle to use and again this
information would be useful.


Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple.

Then why go to such trouble to moan about it when you add your points
directly /to/ it?

Thats the advice you give but its statistically easy to proof that few
people are taking it as cheap bikes sell in huge numbers and if
anything are taking more and more sales. Despite these numbers there
doesn't seem to be a glut of people complaining about them.

Sterling Hose sells /returns/ of cheap bikes. If there was "no
complaint" about them they wouldn't be returned, and Sterling House
wouldn't exist by selling unwanted returns. The subsequent buyers may
not complain in the same volumes (100%, that is), but for /every/ buyer
of one of their bikes there has been a fundamental "I do not want this"
complaint. Do you still think all of them get regular use?


Thats the interesting thing about sterlinghouse returns is that when
sterlinghouse did their £29.99 offer with a free cycle computer
recently I posted it to the bargain forum of the dvd forums and many
people replied and many people bought these bikes including me as I
bought one for myself out of sheer curiousity and also my brother
wanted one for his partner. No one on the forum received an actual
returned model. All were new in their boxes, unscratched etc. All the
bikes received appeared to be older stock with 12 gears whether they
were male or female frames. Whatever the return process was it didn't
involve assembling and riding these bikes and then returning them. My
guess would be universal supply these bikes to the catalogues on a
sale or return basis. If they are sold thats it but if they are unsold
they are returned to universal. Catalogues have a lot of buying power
and I think they could muscle a deal like this. The outer boxes are
dusty and therefore stored but not opened. I'm fairly sure this is the
process going on based on the evidence that the bike boxes are
unopened but dusty.

pick up their £90 Raleigh bike from Halfords and simply drop if off at
the tip on their way home and never mention it again.

I think the usage model is more go out a few times in Summer round the
local country park or whatever, fail to become a regular cyclist and off
to the tip in a few years when the garage gets cleaned out. And never
mention it again.

Pete.

That may be based on your experience at your locality but where I am I
see cheap bikes on the road all the time. I obviously can not know
what percentage of such bikes are locked up in garages and never used
but I do see much more in the way of cheap brands on the road than
well regarded brands.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

I think Sophos is destined for
the bin (and not a moment too soon).


Get yourself off to AVG and avail yourself of a proper AV.

Tony

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB
wrote:
[snip]
Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not
saying cheap bikes are great but people here seem to bend over
backwards to say how life threatening and awful they are.

You characterise yourself as wholly reasonable and balanced but you
characterise anyone who does not agree with you as full of bias and
exaggeration. Motes and beams.

Many
responses often lead to support your local bike dealer type replies
and there are definitely a few people connected to bicycle retailing
who are motivated to be against cheap bikes.

You further assert that that some of those who oppose you have base
motives and have not declared an interest.

People keep saying I'm
biased or I have a chip on my shoulder etc as a stock response but
what exactly would be my motivation. If cheap bikes were terrible I
would be the first to say so.

Well, why would people think you are biased or have a chip on your
shoulder? Could it be that you refuse to allow that anyone who does not
agree with you might do so sincerely, drawing from knowledge and experience?

I consider myself at the extreme of
bicycle riders weight wise and surely if cheap bikes were as bad as
people say I would surely be the person to be talking about it. I
bought a second cheap bike out of sheer curiousity for sterlinghouse
bikes practically expecting it to fall apart. It was £29.99 plus £8.95
postage but with a free cycle computer. Theres nothing cheaper out
there as far as I know. However again it doesn't feature any
suspension. The saddle isn't particularly impressive. The frame while
described as a mountain bike has an obvious kick stand mount just
behind the bottom bracket. So I go out on it after giving it a
thorough checkover and it seems ok. It only has 12 gears but its quite
a likeable bike. Nothing seems particularly terrible and I'm 20 stone
just under so its a real test weight wise. Some of the bits are
identical to my other bike like the pedals. There was a stiff link on
the chain which instantly disappeared when a bit of oil was applied.
The freewheel turned on its own for about 3 turns as it obviously
wasn't fully screwed home at the factory. Its a fair bit lighter than
my other bike, thinner frame and that but seems very well welded in
vietnam.

Your relevant personal experience is a useful contribution to the
debate, but then so is the relevant personal experience of others who
post on this subject.

[snip]
To compare the FAQ to the BNP suggests you are seriously unhinged. You
definitely have no sense of proportion. Usenet is an open forum; anyone
can post here. The FAQ is available to anyone who takes the trouble to
contribute, a service provided entirely voluntarily by those who set it
up and added to it. If you don't like the FAQ, the answer is to either
have the dignity and good grace to ignore it or to change it, not to
post paranoid whines about it.


I'm obviously seriously unhinged then not that I was directly
comparing the BNP to URC of course but merely stateing you don't have
to be a BNP member to have an opinion of it. The same as not having a
cheap bike doesn't stop you having opinions on them either it seems.

Again, you assume you are only one posting from a valid position on the
subject.

Paranoid whines...hmmm. So you have to be paranoid to disagree with
the autofaq.

It makes no sense to complain about what it says when you can change
what it says at will. If you don't like it, do something. If you cannot
be arsed, don't moan.

You seem to think I'm under the illusion that there is
some sort of anticheap bike conspiracy going on. I actually see it
more like someone buying a philips cd micro system and going to an
audio forum which is mainly frequented by hifi enthusiasts. It
wouldn't be a conspiracy merely people with higher expectations of
audio equipment telling the philips owner how rubbish his system is.

Would you also argue on that forum that those with experience of
high-end hi-fi systems could not legitimately point out the real
limitations of the micro-system? Would you allege that all those posting
such views were snobs, that many had never heard let alone owned any
lesser hi-fi systems, and several were dealers in top-end systems
motivated solely by self interest? If not, why do you do that here?

It just seems a shame to me that the urc is positioned in a way to
discourage cycling and make it as exclusive as possible.

The idea that urc is discouraging cycling and determined to make it
exclusive is silly, although I think you could reasonably argue that
some of the messages posted here could be off-putting to some people.
(However, looking at other groups on usenet, this is an outpost of
unbroken calm, good manners, sweet reason and sanity compared to various
others.) However, it seems to me that whenever someone starts a thread
asking about taking up cycling, the response, though sometimes diverse
in details, is nothing but sincere encouragement. Just because you don't
agree with some others' opinions is no excuse for what you allege
against them or this mythical urc collective.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Martin Wilson wrote:


As I've said before the autofaq does seem to represent the majority of
views expressed in this forum so makes a good document in expressing
the general views of forum members. I am not complaining about being
unrepresented in it. I do accuse the autofaq and forum in general of
being too extreme in its comments about cheap bikes.

Well, no-one can force you to do anything, but the autofaq is an
inherently collaborative effort, and will only reflect the views of the
few who contribute. It's rather different from usenet which is mostly
confrontational in nature - ie replying to each others posts, usually
focussing on the disgreement, rather than everyone changing a single
document.

Of course, wikis can also fail when deliberately vandalised by people
who don't want the collaboration to succeed (eg the wikipedia pages on
global warming and related topics, although currently I think they are
just about ok). But I for one think that the autofaq would be stronger
for having your opinion and experiences reflected in it.

James

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB
wrote:
Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not
saying cheap bikes are great

Ah, right. That's one thing to rule out. I've never quite got clear on what
point you *are* trying to make, though.

A

in message , Just zis Guy,
you know? ') wrote:

Mister Brain is barely functioning, actually - I found a New!
Improved!!! virus on Thursday, definitions released 22:00GMT Thursday,
or thereabouts, and I spent all yesterday (apart from the Good Friday
service), all last night and most of today killing the little weaselly
******* off on my network. Luckily the holiday means it hasn't made
it into the customer environments.

This is the third time it's happened despite use being patched to the
hilt and having up-to-date definitions, I think Sophos is destined for
the bin (and not a moment too soon).

We've been seeing increased activity on our firewall, so I assumed there
was a new virus out. Not that it worries me in the least. I first wrote
in a report to a customer twelve years ago:

I don't consider Windows in any of its guises to be a sufficiently
robust or well engineered operating system for professional
software development or for commercial use.

It's still true. Any organisation that uses it deserves what it
(inevitably) gets.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 03:50:57 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
wrote:

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:01:22 +0000, JLB
wrote:
Oh come on there is definitely an air of bike snobbery here. I'm not
saying cheap bikes are great

Ah, right. That's one thing to rule out. I've never quite got clear on what
point you *are* trying to make, though.

A

My point is simple cheap bikes are not as bad as this forum makes out.
They have their place. To many people who buy them they are good
bikes, likeable bikes and enjoyable bikes. They may not be super light
or be high performance but they are usable bikes often better than
past bike designs. The forum position is one of overwhelming criticism
for such bikes. It seems all cheap bikes are lumped together as
equally terrible even if low cost rigid bikes are quite competent and
superior to low price dual suspension bikes as a general rule. Maybe
my point isn't as focused as some others because I've tried to make
fair and honest points and not go completely over the top in one
direction or the other. However thats the way I want to play it.