(from previous message)



 AW>>> Walking and swimming superficially provide viable alternatives.



 RS>> Nothing superficial about it. Many medical people believe they are

 RS>> better alternatives to bike riding.



 AW>> I've just had a look, and I've still got 4 others on this subject to

 AW>> reply to. Bugger that for a joke. Sorry but I want to take my bat and

 AW>> ball and go home ;-).



 RS> I cant help it if you still read with your lips moving and so it takes

 RS> ages to read it |-)



I'm surprised you're not of the opinion that someone has to read it all

to me, and explain the big words ;-)



 AW>> I can continue to spend time posting stats, which you will continue to

 AW>> dismiss as bodgy and unrepresentative. Or you will suggest that 'many

 AW>> medical specialist disagree' without being more specific. It's wearing

 AW>> me down, like I imagine the water torture would. We've had a good

 AW>> exchange of ideas, but we're now stuck on the semantics.



 RS> Nope, just you indulging in a copout when you cant substantiate your

 RS> claims, like that bike riding is uniquely good for health over

 RS> swimming or walking.



This is a similar circumstance to the one in Avtech where you were

irritated at people when they assumed you thought analogue clocks

and devices were useless, when all you had apparently done was claim

that digital ones could be read quickly. I've never said walking or

swimming were useless.



I mentioned some possibilities where an osteo-arthritis sufferer may

be better off riding a bike, rather than jarring the joint(s) through

walking, or stuffing around in the pool. I didn't claim that cycling

was uniquely good for health. In fact if you can find a clean pool, and

you don't mind watching a boring black line for an hour a day, swimming

may indeed be a better choice.





Regards, Alan



--- FMail 0.94