Deserving of a reply, I knew you wouldn't stoop to rhetoric.
Regulator wrote:If there was supposed to be balance in the article in 'Cycle', can comeone explain why people are referred to the CTC web-site for further information - but not to the Save the CTC web-site (or any other web-site)?
Is that a balanced approach to take?
IMO the level of balance shifts if you quote the reference from that article in full rather than in part.
The article says "The debate has been covered in detail - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/charity
for information and links
". The "/charity" page has a "Links and Discussion" button which offers a wide range of links including Save the CTC and the forum.
IMO, given the passionate nature of the debate, it would have been better to have named the Save the CTC site in the article.
It is grossly undignified to have debased the matter with a prize draw.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!