With many US cyclists choosing to boycott a number of cycle brands due to the parent company’s links to the National Rifle Association (NRA), many consumers are asking themselves whether they should make the same decision.
Activists have tried to put pressure on the NRA since the Florida school shooting by targeting firms with links to the organisation or which offer discounts or other benefits to its members.
Corporate partners have been flooded with comments on social media under the hashtag #BoycottNRA and a number of cycle brands have been among them.
As we reported on Thursday, Giro, Bell, Blackburn and Camelbak are all owned by Vista Outdoor, one of the biggest weapons and ammunition makers in the US.
According to Single Track, Vista spent over $500,000 on firearms lobbying in 2017, and is a major sponsor of the NRA’s in-house TV channel. The firm is also active in the National Sports Shooting Foundation, an industry-led lobby group which has campaigned for the relaxation of “concealed carry” laws, and wants to rebrand semi-automatic assault weapons as “Modern Sporting Rifles”.
New York-based cycling advocate Aaron Naparstek pointed out Vista’s lobbying and in a series of tweets and led calls for a boycott of its cycling brands.
So, to sum up: The corporate owner of some of your favorite bike brands — Giro, @CamelBak, Bell Helmets, CoPilot — makes most of its $ selling weapons and ammo and uses its profits to lobby for lax gun laws and to sponsor NRA garbage like this: https://t.co/cCJt1RvQ2K
— Aaron Naparstek (@Naparstek) February 21, 2018
I pledge to stop purchasing bike gear brands owned by @VistaOutdoorInc until Vista stops selling military-grade weapons to the public. I’m boycotting @BellBikeHelmets, CoPilot, @CamelBak, @Bolle_Eyewear and, sadly, Giro, the maker of my favorite helmets. https://t.co/BGXEjEvgvo
— Aaron Naparstek (@Naparstek) February 21, 2018
The response has been significant. A BikeBiz article reporting on the campaign has now been liked over 25,000 times on Facebook.
Outside has since asked three ethics professors whether consumers should stop buying gear from Vista subsidiaries.
Professor Patricia Illingworth, who teaches business ethics at Northeastern University, argues: “People who buy products associated with Vista Outdoor are not directly responsible, but they are morally complicit.” (A reference to gun control laws and not mass shootings, it should be noted.)
Sarah-Vaughan Brakman, a professor of philosophy and ethics at Villanova University, says purchasers should not feel morally at fault, but goes on to say: “If we believe something is wrong, and if together our purchasing power can significantly change the bottom line, then consumers should change their habits.”
In contrast, Jason Brennan, professor of strategy, economics, ethics and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, doesn’t believe a boycott would achieve a great deal. “It’s highly unlikely you’ll end up hurting the other subsidiary you actually despise. The worst-case scenario for the parent company is that they sell the disliked subsidiary to someone else who isn’t concerned about and won’t be affected by the negative press. In the end, that accomplishes little.”
61 thoughts on “Should you boycott a bike brand if its parent company supports the NRA?”
Yes. Yes you should.
Yes. Yes you should.
A timely reminder of how much of a bunch of douches the NRA are: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/nra-gives-ajit-pai-courage-award-and-gun-for-saving-the-internet/
Should the cycling press do
Should the cycling press do so if asking whether we should do so?
Seems to me the answer is
Seems to me the answer is rather simple “Should you boycott a bike brand if its parent company supports the NRA?”
Do you support the NRA? If no, then yes, boycott them. If yes, then no, don’t boycott them. If you don’t care then buy what you like.
DoctorFish wrote:
That’s about right IMHO.
I don’t buy from companies that are proven to be pernicious and morally bankrupt. I feel that, by giving them money in any way, I am endorsing their nefarious activity. I don’t expect anyone else to do the same (though naturally would be happier if they did). I won’t support Specialized after their disgusting bullying behaviour towards a small Canadian bike shop a few years ago, which was shown to be part of a pattern.
Only a fool underestimates the power of public boycotts.
Boycotting companies that
Boycotting companies that support the NRA might not bring them to their knees, but it’ll certainly make you feel better.
Some evidence that it can
Some evidence that it can actually work:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753
edit: interesting that they asked 3 different philosophers and got only 3 different opinions, because normally there’s an n+1 rule at work here, where n is the number of philosophers, and n+m where m>0 is the number of distinct opinions about any given subject.
ConcordeCX wrote:
The answer to the topic is NO!
Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult, so emotionally ‘reason’ support for some really crazy self-destructive shit; a related part-childishness crisis for men is discussed in the book “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover”.
A lot of philosophy is out-of-date, sentimental, and even harmful.
That shooting could have been avoided if the multiple warning to US law enforcers had been acted upon, and less deaths may have occurred if the local police had not been incompetent cowards too! A common thread with all these events appears to be mental instability and strong drugs.
We have no business questioning the very-clearly spelt-out, revolutionary, anti-tyranny reason why the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment. A population without arms has no chance against a tyranny, and gives state enforcers and criminals too much power than normal people. The NRA was probably formed because some people became aware and sought to counter Communist threats to the 2nd Amendment.
Arms are just a tool, it is a culture (influenced by race mix) which misuses arms which is the problem e.g. Switzerland doesn’t have many shootings despite a lot of homes with high powered rifles, because of the culture and education. SJWs need to grow up and realise that they are being used as useful-idiots by malevolent Sociopaths!
urbane wrote:
The NRA was originally founded (1871) to advance rifle markmanship. It began directly lobbying for and against legislation in 1975.
I understand your point about the 2nd Amendment, but it should be updated to account for modern weaponry and the problems that it causes in the U.S. (most likely due to their culture).
I’m not sure what you mean by your race mix comment and your comment about SJWs is arbitrary and pretty much content-less (you could replace the term SJW with any group and it would still make as much sense).
Personally, I can’t see the justification for no restrictions on assault rifles.
urbane wrote:
We have that shit in Europe.
We don’t have school shootings like in the US. Might there be another factor? Think, Watson!
Tools that fire hundreds of rounds per minute and that your mentally unstable, hard drug-using teenager (and actual grown-up) in the US doesn’t seem to have much difficulty laying their hands on.
I think you may have stumbled across your answer.
(I’m skeptical about the point you’re making about Switzerland. Proof that assault rifles are as accessible to teenagers as in the US…?
And throwing ‘race mix’ into it without elaboration makes you seem weird).
urbane wrote:
“Sadly too many women have not made the complete transition from child to adult”
I think you should know that you have stumbled into the early part of 21st-century Britain from your armchair in a gentleman’s club somewhere in the mid-late 19th.
“We have no business questioning […]”
“We” are not all from the USA. We can question whatever we damn well like, thank you, and indeed it is our duty to question everything.
People in the USA have something called the First Amendment, which guarantees their right to question anything. Are you suggesting the Second Amendment trumps the First? This would be the very definition of the tyranny that you think you are defending yourselves from.
In an earlier comment on this subject I speculated about the demographics of gun shit in the USA, so I looked it up.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/
While looking I also found this interesting article from the Washington Post, which confirms my own suspicions about the racist aspects of so-called gun rights:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/15/the-right-to-bear-arms-has-mostly-been-reserved-for-whites/?utm_term=.4e88406583cd
There’s a similar debate
There’s a similar debate going on around Under Armour who support trophy and sport hunting, and around optics manufacturers like Swarovski, Zeiss, and Leica who sell optics to birdwatchers and conservationists while making most of their money selling rifle scopes to hunters. I personally don’t give my money to companies I disagree with on ethical grounds. Does it make a difference? Perhaps, perhaps not, but personally I think it’s better than doing nothing and adding to their bottom line. YMMV of course.
HenHarrier wrote:
I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don’t wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let’s start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven’t been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK. And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.
Griff500 wrote:
I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don’t wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let’s start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven’t been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK. And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.— HenHarrier
That’s one aspect, and it’s a murky international picture, like you say.
But that aspect only covers your own personal funds as a shopper, pension investor, etc. We’re already seeing reputational fall-out with other brands such as Hertz (NRA members got discounts) dropping their NRA tie-ins. That’s far more damaging to the NRA than where a few cyclists buy their shoes.
Even that won’t do any lasting damage, but it’s a small bit of rebalancing. One of the companies that dropped them, for example, had an NRA-themed credit card. Now it doesn’t.
Griff500 wrote:
I would wager you do, without even knowing it, assuming you have any sort of ethical standards at all and don’t wear sack cloth and live on lentils. Let’s start with the clothing industry, who are notrious for exploiting workers in 3rd World countries. If you are a car owner, then discount anything from VW group (Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda) following recent revelations about force feeding exhaust fumes to primates, but maybe the other manufacturers just haven’t been caught yet. Manufacured goods used in Europe have of course been almost totally outsourced to countries who are less concerned about pollution than we are. Once you dig beneath the surface of a company operating internationally, you are very likely to find they do things in other countries which would not be tolerated in the UK. And if you really are sure of your own buying habits, try taking a look at where your pension fund is invested.— HenHarrier
I understand that VW – Audi group were only one of the manufacturers caught up in this, Mercedes and BMW were also involved. They paid money to another agency who conducted ‘research’ for the motor industry generally. The companies claim that they were not informed of the actions until after they had taken place.
Just in the interests of balance you understand
HenHarrier wrote:
Under Armour came out pro Trump – so that’s enough reason for me not to buy any of their kit.
It helps you shop too – less choice makes it slightly easier. I remember back to the early 80s when you had hardly any choice for kit. It’s a bewildering amount now.
I only own one product from
I only own one product from all the named manufacturers, a Camelback bottle. I use it in my van to piss in.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
You may see that as a moral victory, but I still think they’re taking the piss out of you…
madcarew wrote:
You’re dead wrong there my friend. I claim no moral high ground, just passing (pardon the pun) a comment. I could not give a toss what you think!
Incidentally I bought the bottle in 2010 which predates Vista Outdoor’s acquisition of Camelback and have been pissing in it for about five years.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Isn’t it full yet?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Many times.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
I think you may have just missed the joke.
Interesting that, in these
Interesting that, in these post-modern times, actions as a consumer are seen as a meaningful or effective way to change egergious political policies or cultural behaviours. Sadly, such consumer “choices” will have little or no effect. Of course, many people are nothing more than consumers these days. They are what they buy (including the stuff that goes in the landfill). What else can they do but refuse to sup from a camelbak?
What, then, would have an actual effect to alter or eliminate these nasty doings? Find and vote for (or even be) politicians who will act legislatively against the policies and behaviours you regard as so bad as to be intolerable. After all, if racist loons or xenophobic little englanders can do it, why not more sensible folk? One just has to find (or become) a politician who is the antithesis of Maybot, Trunt, Putrid or any of the other gharks & hoos currently perpetrating their poisonous policy pandemics into Very Bad Realities around the planet.
I know – easier said than done!
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media.
Oxfam didn’t know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn’t get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back.
A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders.
The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs… and The Right Thing might actually follow.
‘Consumer power’ goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.
davel wrote:
Interesting that, in these post-modern times, actions as a consumer are seen as a meaningful or effective way to change egergious political policies or cultural behaviours. Sadly, such consumer “choices” will have little or no effect. Of course, many people are nothing more than consumers these days. They are what they buy (including the stuff that goes in the landfill). What else can they do but refuse to sup from a camelbak?
What, then, would have an actual effect to alter or eliminate these nasty doings?— davel Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media. Oxfam didn’t know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn’t get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back. A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders. The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs… and The Right Thing might actually follow. ‘Consumer power’ goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.— Cugel
There is such a thing as bad publicity … true. However, it all depends on the context as to whether publicity concerning support for this or that action/stance results in gain or loss for the supporter(s).
For example, if you’re a Trunt-like politician, or a business organsiation supporting such a politician, this may increase your popularity in certain public domains. It might decrease popularity in others. In the consumer-is-king model, all that matters is the bottom line – does the amount of your popularity overall increase or decrease? Moreover, consumers have short little attention spans and will soon return to buying the shiny gew-gaw even if the manufacturer is a bit of a rascal.
The problem with consumer judgements is that they’re far too democratic and, as such, far too fickle, unreasoning and volatile. The rule of fashion is no substitute for the rule of law.
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
Going absolutely ballistic about it on social media. Oxfam didn’t know how to do The Right Thing in Chad or Haiti, and still didn’t get it a few years later when an internal investigation reported back. A few dropped donations results in shrugged shoulders. The story being batted all over social media and the mainstream media results in executives quitting and being beaten up by MPs… and The Right Thing might actually follow. ‘Consumer power’ goes way beyond taking your pound to a competitor down the street.— davel
There is such a thing as bad publicity … true. However, it all depends on the context as to whether publicity concerning support for this or that action/stance results in gain or loss for the supporter(s).
For example, if you’re a Trunt-like politician, or a business organsiation supporting such a politician, this may increase your popularity in certain public domains. It might decrease popularity in others. In the consumer-is-king model, all that matters is the bottom line – does the amount of your popularity overall increase or decrease? Moreover, consumers have short little attention spans and will soon return to buying the shiny gew-gaw even if the manufacturer is a bit of a rascal.
The problem with consumer judgements is that they’re far too democratic and, as such, far too fickle, unreasoning and volatile. The rule of fashion is no substitute for the rule of law.
Cugel— Cugel
I don’t disagree… But it isn’t that binary.
Ideally all politicians would be whiter than white and not have complicated interests.
While we’re waiting for that, there are plenty of examples of social media, and good old-fashioned investigative journalism, ‘forcing’ politicians and organisations to do something akin to The Right Thing when seemingly they just couldn’t be arsed otherwise.
davel wrote:
Has Road.cc, or any of the
Has Road.cc, or any of the media, got in touch with Giro (and Zyro) et al? What about Rapha and their tie up with Giro, for example? Any word on what they think? Lots of companies ‘doing the right thing’ in the US right now.
Guns don’t kill people
Guns don’t kill people rappers do,
I seen it in a documentary on BBC2,
Brennan’s comment about the
Brennan’s comment about the effect on the subsidiary is interesting. Giro seem to work nicely where they are, are innovative, do good for the sport, produce good stuff. If they were sold on because of the right noises to a better suited company, that wouldn’t really be a bad thing at all, if the workforce, brand etc were to be, at least, static. Wonder if RCZ investments would be interested…….
I’m with you on that one
I’m with you on that one Simon, won’t touch Specialized ever again.
I’ve taken all my Giro shoes,
I took all my Giro shoes, Rapha shoes, gloves, helmet and a bunch of jerseys out into the back garden today and burned it because of this article. Thanks road.cc. I feel a lot better now.
Did I fuck.
Vilie Er wrote:
Yeah, you can’t reach where your mum keeps the matches.
I’m not really sure what to
I’m not really sure what to think about this.
As an engineer, I earn my money from (mostly) defence contracts – so it seems pointless/hypocritical for me to boycott a company that’s owned by a company that supports a pro-rifle group.
I’m certainly glad that we haven’t got nutters running around with semi-auto rifles in the UK though!
wellsprop wrote:
Weapons manufacture is always going to be a morally ambiguous business to be involved with and when your paycheck relies on it, then it’s a tough call to make.
The NRA however, exert a huge influence over U.S. politics with their lobbying/buying of senators. They obstruct attempts to sensibly discuss gun control and attempts at legislation even when it seems obvious that it would save lives. It appears that the NRA’s main priority is to sell more guns.
If you dig into the NRA and their politics, it becomes a bit more worrisome: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/09/27/23-reasons-why-nra-racist/218065
I don’t see it as hypocritical to work for an arms manufacturer and also want gun ownership to be subject to constraints (e.g. not allow troubled teens to obtain assault rifles).
It isn’t so much the ‘pro
It isn’t so much the ‘pro rifle’ bit I have a problem with.
It’s the ‘pro everything that makes people think they need to buy rifles’, arming teachers and whatnot, and then what those rifles are sometimes used for, that I’m less keen on.
Plus shit like this
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/nra-political-money-clout/index.html
The Nazi’s boycotted Jewish
The Nazi’s boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.
Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.
Valbrona wrote:
the nra are the nazis
they perpetuate a culture of fear- they smile at tragedy
undermining a nation’s right to live in peace and safety , spending big bucks to sway the politicans to their will.
guns kill- period
ban the guns- garenteed, the numbers of guns on the street will dwindle as fewer will be sold
America would be great !
Valbrona wrote:
You seem a bit confused. I was a commie the other week.
You can’t even troll properly. Why don’t you leave the internet for grown-ups?
And as for that apostrophe – when are you going to read that book, you semi-literate bellend? Last discussion we had we established that growing up on a council estate wasn’t much of an excuse, given that plenty have and know how to use apostrophes.
You’re just thick.
Valbrona wrote:
Do you understand the difference between hating someone because of what they do and hating someone because of what they are?
The Nazis’ hate was motivated by the old divide and conquer tactic used by Hitler to gain power. It’s a common trick – paint an outsider group (e.g. Mexicans) as being the cause of various social problems (e.g. they’re taking our jobs). Then use fear and hate to get your followers to do whatever you want them to do.
My issue with the NRA is not that they manufacture arms (they don’t), but that they are basically a lobby group that uses lots of money to influence the democratic process. Buying from Vista Outdoor is basically providing money so that the NRA can continue with their interference.
Now, if you are a huge fan of guns and people owning guns, then you might want to encourage the NRA and I don’t have a problem with that, although I’d probably form an opinion about your lack of foresight and critical thinking abilities, but hey, that’s just my opinion.
So, boycotting the NRA is not for “nasty and hateful types” (you sound like Gollum by the way), but for people who don’t like to see people spreading hate and fear and shooting each other. The NRA want everyone to have a gun to protect themselves from the Mexicans/Jews/Blacks or whatever the hate topic of the week is – that’s hate and fear right there.
Anyway, thanks for playing, but your trolling doesn’t have anything of substance. Ideally you should learn some critical thinking tactics before posting such asinine rubbish.
Valbrona wrote:
summa cum laude from the NRA School of Logic and Moral Equivalence. Well done.
Valbrona wrote:
So, according to you, in order not to be a Nazi I have to be forced to go out and buy products I don’t want, against my will?
Gun manufacturers are not Jews in Nazi Germany. Don’t get too worried for them, nobody is going to be murdering them en masse. That you can even imagine that suggests you are not all there.
The Nazis did a lot of things. They also ranted a lot about Marxism and were very keen on ‘taking back control’ of their country. Any chance you’ll change your own behaviour as a result?
(I’m still disinclined to join such a boycott, partly becasue I don’t have any plans to buy any of these products anyway, but also because it’s not really my business what Americans do to each other – it’s their problem, and up to them what they do about it.)
Valbrona wrote:
Hitler had a mustache so everyone with a mustache is literally Hitler.
Valbrona was right….
:)) Valbrona was right….
Having read a bit about the
Having read a bit about the NRA and its influence recently. It strikes me that when organied crime attempted to buy US politicians it was seen as undesirable, yet when the NRA do the same thing its quite OK.
IF people do start to cost companies that support the NRA and its customers hard cash I think it will have a very limited effect, reason being there is simply far too much money and far to many jobs involved and frankly far too many people that like to go out and indulge their sad little Rambo Robocop fantasies under the guise of “being ready” at the local range for the US to start banning guns and IMHO it will never happen no matter how many bikes we dont buy nor how any more kids get shot, because just like drugs everyone knows its not good but peple just LOVE to play with them.
I thought we boycotted South
I thought we boycotted South African Cape fruit to end apartheid, not to support the Nazis.
My mistake.
By any chance did Hitler have
By any chance did Hitler have anything to do with Audi?
I see the village idiot has
I see the village idiot has left his box again to spout his special brand of thickfuck. You’re an ignorant cunt Valbrona. Do one!
What do the liberals who can
What do the liberals who can’t win arguments come up with?
No platforming and boycotts.
Pathetic.
Valbrona wrote:
hang on, a minute, wasn’t it you earlier in the thread who raised the matter of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses? Those damn liberal Nazis! Make your mind up! Still, at least they never no-platformed the opposition and were happy for free speech to remain unthreatened throughout their liberal administration.
Valbrona wrote:
What do thick cunts come up with? Bullshit.
Wankers.
If you could articulte your position, you’d get respect for, at least, articulating it. But you can’t because you’re a thick racist twat, and yes, you’ve had the opportunity to enter into dialogue but are too fucking thick to defend your position. Fuck off to the mods to complain about being called a thick racist prick.
I’m not sure why you’d want to support mass murder, but hey…
Valbrona wrote:
Says the poster who never even engages in anything resembling reasoned argument, yet alone ever wins one!
I await your proposal for how you are going to force people to buy things they don’t want to buy. And your inevitably illogical argument for how that constitutes ‘freedom’.
Valbrona wrote:
In the 1870s, Irish farmers faced an agricultural crisis that threatened to result in a repeat of the terrible famine and mass evictions of the 1840s. Anticipating financial ruin, they formed a Land League to campaign against the rent increases and evictions landlords were imposing as a result of the crisis. Retired British army captain Charles Boycott had the misfortune to be acting as an agent for an absentee landlord at the time, and when he tried to evict tenant farmers for refusing to pay their rent, he was ostracized by the League and community. His laborers and servants quit, and his crops began to rot. Boycott’s fate was soon well known, and his name became a byword for that particular protest strategy.
Boycotting is a simple, effective strategy for protesting and especially useful where there is a big power imbalance. There’s little benefit in arguing with the NRA as they pretty much exist just to enable gun companies to sell more guns. They don’t respond to logic and unfortunately they have lots of money and use that to purchase politicians and thus thwart the democratic process.
It would seem that most people in the U.S. don’t want teens to be able to get assault rifles (e.g. AR-15) and then go on a killing spree. However, the NRA act to prevent any restrictions on selling guns. As there is so much money flowing to an organisation that acts against people’s interests, it makes perfect sense to try to stop some of that money flowing.
Now, I’m somewhat confused about your position on boycotts – whether or not they are effective or unfair in some way. Could you clarify what your position is?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Nooooooo, it’s the boycotting and no-platforming that’s undemocratic…. I mean, what harm can half of Congress being in the NRA’s pay actually do?
Hello everyone. Must confess
Hello everyone. Must confess to being really confused. Should I, or should I not drink from a Camelbak bottle, chiefly on the basis of whether it’s full of piss and what vintage said piss might be?
Many thanks.
Beecho wrote:
Ok to drink from any camelbak bottle that hasn’t spent the last 5 years in a van.
Just don’t buy a new one.
Beecho wrote:
Hello everyone. Must confess to being really confused. Should I, or should I not drink from a Camelbak bottle, chiefly on the basis of whether it’s full of piss and what vintage said piss might be?
Many thanks.
— Beecho
When the bonk strikes, even a well flattened & rotted hedgehog looks tasty. The same syndrome may occur on those very hot days in the wilds where wee shops selling tinned fattening juices are absent and the becks have all dried up.
Should you find yourself dehydrated to a certain dangerous degree, I recommend that you have a sook at the pi55-filled camelbottle as this is better than collapsing from severe dried-upness. If you are fortunate, the bottle will be a-one filled then cast from the window by Miss Gorgeous 2018, on her way in a 1981 BMC limo from a Butlins holiday camp in West Northumberland to another on the Cumbria coast, after too much babycham.
This consideration prompts me to enquire where others would draw the line, concerning the source of the liquid in such a bottle and it’s potential as a thirst-quencher? Or, to put it the other way about, whose nether-liquid might tempt you to develop a severe thirst so as to satisfy a secret yen?
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
Should you find yourself dehydrated to a certain dangerous degree, I recommend that you have a sook at the pi55-filled camelbottle as this is better than collapsing from severe dried-upness. If you are fortunate, the bottle will be a-one filled then cast from the window by Miss Gorgeous 2018, on her way in a 1981 BMC limo from a Butlins holiday camp in West Northumberland to another on the Cumbria coast, after too much babycham.
This consideration prompts me to enquire where others would draw the line, concerning the source of the liquid in such a bottle and it’s potential as a thirst-quencher? Or, to put it the other way about, whose nether-liquid might tempt you to develop a severe thirst so as to satisfy a secret yen?
Cugel— Cugel
Well in the light of all this
Well in the light of all this I had better bin my Dad’s old BSA just in case
– Oh God!! My first bike was a BSA too – am I doomed to be discommunicated from the cycling fraternity?
.
.
NRA donated $50m to the 2016
NRA donated $50m to the 2016 election, and by boycotting Vista, that could make it hard for Vista to donate as much for the 2018 or 2020 elections. So I could donate $10 to an anti-NRA (i.e. pro common sense and science) person, or I could not buy the new Giro helmet and shoes that I was going to buy this spring, and hopefully take $10 out of Vista’s NRA budget.
I try to not support any business or country that engages in activities I strongly disagree with.
Now I’m conflicted: http:/
Now I’m conflicted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43235969
When Trump has the same views, should you automatically change your mind or just assume that he randomly had a good idea (stopped clocks and all that)?