Auchmill wrote:Those who feel offended by the cover pic are elitist snobs.
It's not offensive, it's misleading. You're probably right on the elitist and snob bit though, one has certain standards.
Auchmill wrote:Those who feel offended by the cover pic are elitist snobs.
R_nger wrote:That picture looks familiar...
http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/dl/ridgeback_brochure_2009.pdf
Page 21 ?
Tonyf33 wrote:Well I guess it saves a lot of money 'purchasing' a stock photo than it does setting up a photo shoot for what is effectively a free magazine.
Maybe they could save even more by asking members to submit photos for use on the mag throughout?
TwoPlusTen wrote:Tonyf33 wrote:Well I guess it saves a lot of money 'purchasing' a stock photo than it does setting up a photo shoot for what is effectively a free magazine.
Maybe they could save even more by asking members to submit photos for use on the mag throughout?
Decent idea that. Maybe they could pillage (with relevant taker's permission!) some of the ones on here as well.
Tonyf33 wrote:Problem is a photo of two wrinklies taking up more than half the carriagway cycling through town with a stern look on there faces & with god forbid 1 one pannier at the rear just wont cut it with the trendy brigade trying to reach out to the unconverted.![]()
A prize for the front cover picture maybe a good incentive along with acknowlegements for any others provided gratis.
George Riches wrote:Three and a half months after someone has the barefaced audacity to post an off-message comment, there are still people indulging in dim-witted prattle about it.
George Riches wrote:Three and a half months after someone has the barefaced audacity to post an off-message comment, there are still people indulging in dim-witted prattle about it.
Tonyf33 wrote: You'd be a great candidate for my stern, wrinkly CTC magazine front cover picture, care to model for me an i'll take the pic![]()
![]()