Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
wrote: It's been done quite recently. Check out these guys -- although I think they did have support. http://adventuresforthecure.com/ Robert LEone wrote: In December, 2006 I'm embarking on a cross country ride to raise awareness and nonpartisan support for our troops involved in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm calling the ride Trek 4 the Troops, and I welcome you to read more about it www.trek4thetroops.com. What makes this ride different from other cross-continental awareness/fund raising rides? The ride will be done solo, without a support vehicle, on a fixed-gear. That's right, FIXED GEAR! To the best of my knowledge only a select few have ever traversed the continent on a fixed-gear, and some might say that the attempt is crazy. SNIP Wow, that's pretty cool what they did. I wasn't aware they'd done that. You're right, they did have a support vehicle. Maybe I should change my intro to emphasize the solo, non-supported aspect of my ride (just kidding, it ain't a big deal that others have done it, too. It's still pretty crazy). Scott |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
wrote in message ps.com... Frank Drackman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Rich Clark wrote: wrote in message ups.com... So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and isn't appropriate here. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't support the war. You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from "support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping them in their mission makes me complicit in it. I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. RichC Rich, I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war". I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2) it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit different. I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops while not supporting the war. The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they completely missed that. It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get attention for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get attention. Very sad. Frank, You couldn't be more wrong. Yes, I had thought of riding cross country for awhile. But, my motivation is not to raise attention to me, regardless of how you see it. I saw an opportunity to do something good with something I was thinking of doing anyway. If you see that as self-serving, so be it. Very, very sad. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:25:30 -0400, "Rich Clark"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and isn't appropriate here. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't support the war. You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from "support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping them in their mission makes me complicit in it. That's the problem, it isn't a rogue government. You're just in a state of denial about that. Get over it. Bush was elected and enacted policies that, wisely or not were widely supported. Come to grips with that concept and you will become politically relevent. Ron I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. RichC |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Start your own thread, please!
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:43:35 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On a strategic level, getting the troops home from Iraq and not letting them get caught up in another pointless exercize that puts them in harm's way is probably the best way to support the US military men and women. They didn't sign up to stay home and stay safe. But I have question for Bill C -- what's a good charity to give to to directly support servicemen who are still there (or in need in other places). I may need to assuage some of my liberal guilt. Encourage them to succeed instead of whining about their obstacles. Ron |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
"Donald Munro" a écrit dans le message de news:
.. . bill wrote: The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields. Donald Munro wrote: Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton. Howard Kveck wrote: Cheneystan. Presumably UCI licenses would be available in Cheneystan. Nope, Bicycling in Cheneystan would be punishable by waterboarding. The best you could hope for is that they'd allow gas-guzzling dernys. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
Donald Munro wrote: bill wrote: The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields. Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton. And the capital? Cheneyopolis? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
Donald Munro wrote:
bill wrote: The 51st state, Iraqi oil fields. Donald Munro wrote: Presumably the name of this new state would be Haliburton. Howard Kveck wrote: Cheneystan. Presumably UCI licenses would be available in Cheneystan. Of course they wouldn't. We don't need no steenkin' licenses. As long as you had large corporation sponsorship, you're good to go. Doping would be legal and sponsored. The only drawback is that Der Tour de Cheneystan awards ceremony would be presided over by what appears to be a world record grimacing hemorrhoid. R |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trek 4 the Troops | [email protected] | General | 134 | November 27th 06 01:14 PM |
Road Bike Geometry: Traditional vs. Comfort (eg. Trek 1000 vs. Trek Pilot 1.0) | Gray | Techniques | 32 | September 14th 06 11:48 PM |
Posting #201 for Doug's old used Trek seatpost: the benefits | Frank | Marketplace | 2 | February 21st 05 10:36 PM |
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? | yuri budilov | Techniques | 1 | April 4th 04 10:53 PM |
Klein vs. Trek (crossposted) | Lester Long | Techniques | 9 | September 29th 03 06:47 PM |