Good cycling article in the Guardian today

[Martin Dann]

Chris Eilbeck wrote:
>
> What distinction are you making? You only cycle to get somewhere?
> You never go out for a ride just for the hell of it?

I have to say that most times I go for a ride, I am going
somewhere, but that is often just an excuse. e.g. today I
did a twenty odd mile round trip to do some shopping.

The two nearest supermarkets to me are within 10 minutes
of walking, but why would I walk when I can ride.

Martin.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
[email protected]lid says...
> Adrian Godwin wrote:
> > Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was "Good
> >> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not rubbishing
> >> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
> >>
> >
> > Did I read the wrong article ?
> >
> > I thought the Times article was good. Less positive and upbeat than the
> > Guardian one perhaps, but it seemed to bring out many of the HC concerns
> > and even quoted John Franklin widely.
>
> Did you think it was better than the Guardian one - I did not, hence
> calling it less good. Then spelling out that "less good" is not
> rubbishing it. I cannot spell it out anymore
>
"Less good" somehow implies 'bad' - I don't know why, I know that's not
the literal meaning, but that's how I read it too.

 

[Stevo]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
> [email protected]lid says...
>> Adrian Godwin wrote:
>>> Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was "Good
>>>> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not rubbishing
>>>> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
>>>>
>>> Did I read the wrong article ?
>>>
>>> I thought the Times article was good. Less positive and upbeat than the
>>> Guardian one perhaps, but it seemed to bring out many of the HC concerns
>>> and even quoted John Franklin widely.
>> Did you think it was better than the Guardian one - I did not, hence
>> calling it less good. Then spelling out that "less good" is not
>> rubbishing it. I cannot spell it out anymore
>>
> "Less good" somehow implies 'bad' - I don't know why, I know that's not
> the literal meaning, but that's how I read it too.

Was this the first time you read it or after I had posted "Calling
something less good is not rubbishing something."? Adrian replied after
me "spelling out", you are replying to this thread. Can someone please
explain where the confusion now lies and how it could be spelt out further.

 

[Stevo]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 19:53, Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun, 18:11, Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Brian Drury wrote:
>>>>> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,2104219,00.html
>>>> And a less good one in today's Sunday Times
>>>> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/...
>>> Typical
>>> The Guardian-Islington-labour, cycles 4 miles and gives top ten tips
>>> Times-(where does he live)-Conservative, cycles 6 miles and is
>>> rubbished, tut
>> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was "Good
>> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not rubbishing
>> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
>
> I know, that's why i said he was rubbished as a cyclist...

Cite please where he was "rubbished as a cyclist" or retract please.

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Was this the first time you read it or after I had posted "Calling
> something less good is not rubbishing something."? Adrian replied after
> me "spelling out", you are replying to this thread. Can someone please
> explain where the confusion now lies and how it could be spelt out further.

Steve, although I followed up your article for context, I wasn't
directly responding to you or anyone else : I was simply confused that
what I'd thought was a reasonable article seemed to be regarded in the
thread by someone as bad, perhaps anti-cycling. Your explanation that
you merely meant that it wasn't as good, for whatever reason, as the
Guardian one was just fine with me.

I genuinely wondered whether I'd picked up the wrong link, and missed
some other article on the same page.

-adrian

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
[email protected]lid says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
> > [email protected]lid says...
> >> Adrian Godwin wrote:
> >>> Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was "Good
> >>>> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not rubbishing
> >>>> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
> >>>>
> >>> Did I read the wrong article ?
> >>>
> >>> I thought the Times article was good. Less positive and upbeat than the
> >>> Guardian one perhaps, but it seemed to bring out many of the HC concerns
> >>> and even quoted John Franklin widely.
> >> Did you think it was better than the Guardian one - I did not, hence
> >> calling it less good. Then spelling out that "less good" is not
> >> rubbishing it. I cannot spell it out anymore
> >>
> > "Less good" somehow implies 'bad' - I don't know why, I know that's not
> > the literal meaning, but that's how I read it too.
>
> Was this the first time you read it or after I had posted "Calling
> something less good is not rubbishing something."?

First time I read it - I assumed the link you posted was to a ****
article so didn't bother reading it.

> Adrian replied after me "spelling out", you are replying to this thread.

I know - it was his comment that made me realise what "less good" meant
in this context.

> Can someone please
> explain where the confusion now lies and how it could be spelt out further.
>
It's a strange one - I think maybe "good and less good" is often used to
mean "good and bad".
Something like "another article (not quite as good)" might better convey
a "less positive but not negative" meaning.

 

[Clive George]

"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
> [email protected]lid says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Stevo
>> > [email protected]lid says...
>> >> Adrian Godwin wrote:
>> >>> Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was
>> >>>> "Good
>> >>>> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not
>> >>>> rubbishing
>> >>>> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Did I read the wrong article ?
>> >>>
>> >>> I thought the Times article was good. Less positive and upbeat than
>> >>> the
>> >>> Guardian one perhaps, but it seemed to bring out many of the HC
>> >>> concerns
>> >>> and even quoted John Franklin widely.
>> >> Did you think it was better than the Guardian one - I did not, hence
>> >> calling it less good. Then spelling out that "less good" is not
>> >> rubbishing it. I cannot spell it out anymore
>> >>
>> > "Less good" somehow implies 'bad' - I don't know why, I know that's not
>> > the literal meaning, but that's how I read it too.
>>
>> Was this the first time you read it or after I had posted "Calling
>> something less good is not rubbishing something."?
>
> First time I read it - I assumed the link you posted was to a ****
> article so didn't bother reading it.
>
>> Adrian replied after me "spelling out", you are replying to this thread.
>
> I know - it was his comment that made me realise what "less good" meant
> in this context.
>
>> Can someone please
>> explain where the confusion now lies and how it could be spelt out
>> further.
>>
> It's a strange one - I think maybe "good and less good" is often used to
> mean "good and bad".
> Something like "another article (not quite as good)" might better convey
> a "less positive but not negative" meaning.

<AOL>

I saw the original post, and thought it meant "this isn't a good article".
"Less good" probably wasn't a sensible description - isn't it time to accept
that and move on?

cheers,
clive

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 18 Jun, 22:06, Chris Eilbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> "The other view point, there is one you know..." <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 18 Jun, 17:59, Chris Eilbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "The other view point, there is one you know..." <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> > I'm not a troll, just someone with another viewpoint, and re read
> >> > your own sig line.
>
> >> Are you a cyclist with another viewpoint?
>
> > I would describe myself as some on who uses a cycle, rather than a
> > cyclist. Bit like, i eat vegetables, but i'm not a vegetarian.
>
> What distinction are you making? You only cycle to get somewhere?
> You never go out for a ride just for the hell of it?
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris Eilbeck

other way, I cycle for a bit of activity, not because I have too or
i'm green or think cars are evil or as a lifestyle choice.

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 20 Jun, 00:30, Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Jun, 19:53, Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> >>> On 17 Jun, 18:11, Stevo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Brian Drury wrote:
> >>>>>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,2104219,00.html
> >>>> And a less good one in today's Sunday Times
> >>>>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/...
> >>> Typical
> >>> The Guardian-Islington-labour, cycles 4 miles and gives top ten tips
> >>> Times-(where does he live)-Conservative, cycles 6 miles and is
> >>> rubbished, tut
> >> The Time's article wasn't written by Boris, the thread title was "Good
> >> cycling article", not MP. Calling something less good is not rubbishing
> >> something. Such a short reply and so many things you get wrong.
>
> > I know, that's why i said he was rubbished as a cyclist...
>
> Cite please where he was "rubbished as a cyclist" or retract please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

can't find it, it's moved, and no.