Viewing Thread:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Wish Me Luck - 'Tis for Charity"

Yep.
I'm doing a cycling thing for a couple of charities in an hour and a half or so - Cancer Scotland, and one that I'm not even going to bother attempting to write, as it's named after its founder. Who was Czechoslovakian. Oh, and it's a war veteran charity.

It's roughly 7-15 miles or so, and there's a lot of flat, so it'll be a really good opportunity to push myself like hell. And it's a good chance to see what this new bike is made of - I haven't really used it since I got it a couple of months ago. I'll also need to duck-tape/glue/6-inch nail down my speedo, as the blimmin' clips are broken, and it keeps falling off.

Thing is, though, is that the ground is still wet from last nights concoction of wonderful weather. The sun is out just now though, so hoepfully it'll dry up a bit.

There's roughly 20 or so doing it, and a few are professional cyclists for the Scottish Borders team. So that's lovely. But my mates were reluctant to do it with me - so reluctant that they aren't. Damn them. Ah well, just means more silence to concentrate. And stuff.
Everybody's starting at different times I think, as not to clog up the road.

If I'm not back in say, at least 10 hours, assume the worst. Then party probably.

Oh, and someone tape Roma vs Sampdoria on Eurosport at 2pm for me.
Ta.

Ah yes, the people who are dieing are less important than the animals that have died before.

That's what you're saying... Right?

Azul wrote:
> Cubist V.2 wrote:
> I personally prefer Animal Charities as they are more or less unable
> to help themselves. Humans are really messed up and I think since we
> are more able than animals and most of the things that go wrong with
> our lives happen because we support the people making the decisions
> shows us that we really don't deserve charity considering it's often
> our fault.
>
> That's disgusting.
>
> People who get cancer can help themselves, can they?
> Young children who discover they have leukemia can help themselves,
> can they?
>
> You're an idiot if that's what you believe. Truly.

You know that's not what I mean although if you look at my following paragraph you'll see that what I do dissaprove of is when people get diseases like Cancer and Leukemia suddenly they think the world revolves around them and that their lives are significant compared to that of the hundreds of thousands of animals that have suffered and died over the years giving innacurate and inconclusive results.

When we finally do create cures though does the people who benefit feel grateful? Do they feel remorse that they are benefitting from the butchering and death of animals? I wouldn't take a stand against the world by not using animal tested products but I am grateful for their involuntary sacrifices and try and make others see that their are alternatives to animal testing and that they should at least be grateful for their lives.

Lead Ex wrote:
> Good luck Azul, hope you do well in the races.

It's not a race.

And Borat, I've discovered it's a bit more than 15 - they're not sure how much though.

I start it all at half 3 - just got a call to confirm it.
It was originally 3, but they've put it half an hour forward.

And I have to cycle back again, remember.
Bah.

ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Good Luck.
>
> Although 15 miles on a bike doesn't seem that far to me. I might be
> wrong.

I think he means 15 miles for each, but Im not sure.

Good Luck.

Although 15 miles on a bike doesn't seem that far to me. I might be wrong.

Good luck Azul, hope you do well in the races.

Cubist V.2 wrote:
> I personally prefer Animal Charities as they are more or less unable
> to help themselves. Humans are really messed up and I think since we
> are more able than animals and most of the things that go wrong with
> our lives happen because we support the people making the decisions
> shows us that we really don't deserve charity considering it's often
> our fault.

That's disgusting.

People who get cancer can help themselves, can they?
Young children who discover they have leukemia can help themselves, can they?

You're an idiot if that's what you believe. Truly.

H²O wrote:
> How can you say that, 'i dissagree with your choice blah blah'
> He is helping people in need. You dont say 'oh, i dont really care
> about those people, im going to help someone else'

Of course i can say that lol. If everyone agreed on what charities should get the most funds then there wouldn't be such a wide variety of charities out there with varying degrees of funds and success.

I personally prefer Animal Charities as they are more or less unable to help themselves. When was the last time you saw cats using M-16's because another cat was being a dictator over the land of mice? That's just crazy. Humans are really messed up and I think since we are more able than animals and most of the things that go wrong with our lives happen because we support the people making the decisions shows us that we really don't deserve charity considering it's often our fault.

I also feel that it is sickening how people take the lives of animals for granted. I mean FFS they are not blocks of steel that'll feel nothing. Animal research shows horrible things happen to animals for the benefit of humans and for what? Innacurate results and ungrateful humans who'll take the cure without any thought of the treatment of all the animals that have suffered and died for them over the years. It's sickening really just how narrow minded we can be.

Anyway that's my opinion. I prefer animal charities because quite frankly their simplicity makes them better than us.

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> I read that first bit as you need a 6 inch nail down your speedo's.
>
> *shudders*

Heh heh.
That would equal a lot of pain, I'm sure.

How can you say that, 'i dissagree with your choice blah blah'

He is helping people in need. You dont say 'oh, i dont really care about those people, im going to help someone else'

Think before you say something like that.

Good luck azul!