Graham wrote:Please note that any further "head-of-a-pin" arguments will invoke the dreaded . . . . naughty step. !
Please explain. I'd never heard of "head-of-a-pin" arguments, so I consulted Mrs fausto99, who is a retired English teacher, and she explained about academic clerics and futile theoretical arguments re fitting angels onto pins, but I still fail to see the relevance to any of the posts in this thread.
It did occur to me that it was "head of a pin" stuff while it was going on.
What it means is that the discussion became focused in on a tiny little detail so unimportant to the main discussion about technical advice that it became a bit silly. It became a discussion over what is a "shop", whether it has to be a bricks-and-mortar place you can visit, whether it can be just online, whether it can be called a shop if it is just a customer asking for something directly, in a conversation...... And since it all implies the possibility of dishonourable intent it ventures into possible libel, with (to my mind) no solid evidence, it all becomes a bit dodgy.
It is legitimate, however, to ask whether, in principle, it is right for someone who has a commercial interest in selling bike stuff should be put forward to offer impartial technical advice. Regardless of whether we call his operation a "shop". But this was not the objection of the OP, which was simply concerned with the dubious nature of some of the advice offered.