Oh the hypocrisy...yeah i think in just about evry article u gotta guess what they really ment because they put the wrong words in. Come on u think for a mag that puts out a mag every 4 months and is half the size of most monthly mags they would be able to proof read the thing.I have to say that the only thing good in that mag is the stickers, and the wallride how to too much dh for my liking
Gold !Oh the hypocrisy...
Hah, they only get spam because they are 'teh awesome' (as we at [R] would almost certainly put it), if they ever actually try and bribe me, the spicy ham will stop post-haste as my opinion is not for sale.I have been reading bits hear and there for about a week now.
What I want to know is how much $$$ did FTR pay Ryan to write the supposed Queensland article?? Talk about SPAM!
Without brown-nosing too much here, you should be the editor. Whoever edits and proof reads that magazine has gotta be either blind, illiterate or just fucking lazy (although I haven't managed to find any typos or major fuckups in your articles so far).Hah, they only get spam because they are 'teh awesome' (as we at [R] would almost certainly put it), if they ever actually try and bribe me, the spicy ham will stop post-haste as my opinion is not for sale.
Yes. Spelling/grammar/typos this issue are atrocious, possibly the worst issue yet in that regard. Rest assured that I abuse JT about this problem every single issue, as I for one DO think that it detracts from what is otherwise awesome content.
...furthermore, something that sh!ts me about ALL bike mag tests is the difference between the spec listed and the spec in the pictures. For instance, you can clearly see a set of RaceFace cranks on the Cove Shocker, but the "SPEC'S" (when the f*** are these guys going to learn that plurals don't need an apostrophe?!?!?) list the cranks as Truvative.And yeah the content is generally good except the bike reviews
Just quietly, "Specs" is technically a conjunction/shortening of "Specifications" and not a plural of "Spec" (which isn't actually a word) so in that case, the apostrophe is acceptable. There are many more instances where it clearly is not.Yeah, the proof-reading on this mag is clearly handled by a stoned chimpanzee, but it's a very good read regardless, so I won't harp on about it.
...furthermore, something that sh!ts me about ALL bike mag tests is the difference between the spec listed and the spec in the pictures. For instance, you can clearly see a set of RaceFace cranks on the Cove Shocker, but the "SPEC'S" (when the f*** are these guys going to learn that plurals don't need an apostrophe?!?!?) list the cranks as Truvative.
Yep. Got me on that one. Sorry.Just quietly, "Specs" is technically a conjunction/shortening of "Specifications" and not a plural of "Spec" (which isn't actually a word) so in that case, the apostrophe is acceptable. There are many more instances where it clearly is not.
<insert pet hate>list the cranks as Truvative.