On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:53:15 -0400, "bam" <mcca5blah@bellsouth.net> wrote: "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the the RRR Cult's Agendas!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote: slate <slate1947@hotmail.com> wrote: "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote: "bam" <mcca5blah@bellsouth.net> wrote: "
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:47:37 +0100, nully <nully@null.void> wrote: judith wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:59:19 +0100, nully <nully@null.void> wrote: Martin wrote: nully wrote: My question was nothing more than "are Cyclecraft a 'trusted' source of unskewed info, and if so is that trust extended to them *outside* of the cycling fraternity". Nothing
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:53:22 +0100, Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote: nully wrote: My question was nothing more than "are Cyclecraft a 'trusted' source of unskewed info, and if so is that trust extended to them *outside* of the cycling fraternity". Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to feel *any* question to be impertinent and anti-cyclist, so one just has to take
Martin wrote: nully wrote: My question was nothing more than "are Cyclecraft a 'trusted' source of unskewed info, and if so is that trust extended to them *outside* of the cycling fraternity". Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to feel *any* question to be impertinent and anti-cyclist, so one just has to take everything on blind faith. No thanks, I'll not bother, and
