DL: "My thanks to Russell Pearson on another thread for bringing this to light. I offer it to Richard in case he missed this bit of bigotry. When bigotry is displayed, there is no harm in identifying a bigot as a bigot."[You then go on to refer to someone in the cycling lobby who appears to be a racist bigot]RC: To characterise me, or people in the cycling lobby, as "bigots", just because one individual from the lobby is one, is about as valid as eg my characterising you as a Redneck because some other American voted for Trump. (Actually more than 70 million of them voted for him.)All of which brings me back to my original point, which is that it does neither you, the causes which you espouse, or this website generally, any good when you continually seize upon every excuse, no matter how specious or irrelevant, to drag the debate round to CS9.This is especially so when you hijack such an important debate as the present one, Homophobia, which I thought would have been equally dear to your heart.Of course you don't like CS9, we get that. And whether it should prevail or not, there is a valid case for opposing CS9, we get that too.So here is my simple, non-perjorative pleas: there are already numerous threads covering cycling, so why not confine your views on CS9 to the relevant threads, so as not to hijack the debate on this one?
Richard Cathcart ● 2074d