Sir Lance and Ride for the Roses....



.....I was doing a bit of surfing last night and realized that Lance's
Ride for the roses is fast approaching.Now myself I could care less
about what lance does but some folks like the idea of saying they rode
in a bike ride with Sir lance.Anyway the whole ride has been changed.

In the past you were required to raise $500 in order to participate,if
my memory serves me correctly.Well this year a measly $500 will get you
in a ride the week before the Ride for the Roses.Lance's schedule is
much to hectic for him to show up for the measly $500 dollar ride and
besides most of these folks are really rather
"common"...However,according to the Livedrunk website the following
week will be the actual Ride for the roses.Now to have the honor of
being in the presence of Sir lance you have to shell out
$15,000.Lance's busy schedule will not keep him away from this event
and besides it will be all his Hollywood friends and such.

Let us not forget....Lance is the man and if you need to be remined
just ask him.....
 
P

Phil Holman

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ....I was doing a bit of surfing last night and realized that Lance's
> Ride for the roses is fast approaching.Now myself I could care less
> about what lance does but some folks like the idea of saying they rode
> in a bike ride with Sir lance.Anyway the whole ride has been changed.
>
> In the past you were required to raise $500 in order to participate,if
> my memory serves me correctly.Well this year a measly $500 will get
> you
> in a ride the week before the Ride for the Roses.Lance's schedule is
> much to hectic for him to show up for the measly $500 dollar ride and
> besides most of these folks are really rather
> "common"...However,according to the Livedrunk website the following
> week will be the actual Ride for the roses.Now to have the honor of
> being in the presence of Sir lance you have to shell out
> $15,000.Lance's busy schedule will not keep him away from this event
> and besides it will be all his Hollywood friends and such.
>
> Let us not forget....Lance is the man and if you need to be remined
> just ask him.....
>


You twirp. What do they do with the funds raised?

Phil H
 

Guest
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> ....I was doing a bit of surfing last night and realized that Lance's
>> Ride for the roses is fast approaching.Now myself I could care less
>> about what lance does but some folks like the idea of saying they rode
>> in a bike ride with Sir lance.Anyway the whole ride has been changed.
>>
>> In the past you were required to raise $500 in order to participate,if
>> my memory serves me correctly.Well this year a measly $500 will get you
>> in a ride the week before the Ride for the Roses.Lance's schedule is
>> much to hectic for him to show up for the measly $500 dollar ride and
>> besides most of these folks are really rather
>> "common"...However,according to the Livedrunk website the following
>> week will be the actual Ride for the roses.Now to have the honor of
>> being in the presence of Sir lance you have to shell out
>> $15,000.Lance's busy schedule will not keep him away from this event
>> and besides it will be all his Hollywood friends and such.
>>
>> Let us not forget....Lance is the man and if you need to be remined
>> just ask him.....
>>

>
> You twirp. What do they do with the funds raised?
>
> Phil H
>


Easy :
60 000 LIVESTRONG T Wristband (made in China) - 100 Pack-Adust : $100.00 .
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I myself am well aware of what is done with the money raised.....what
> is your point?


Considering your obvious jealousy and pettiness, you may refuse to get
this, but I'll try to explain it to you.

Lance has proclaimed himself as having a mission, nay, a calling... to
advance the battle against cancer. He's doing that by raising money to
help in the research for a cure AND to provide inspiration to those
battling the disease now and in the future.

So, one thing he can do is participate in fund raising events such as
the Ride for the Roses. IF, and this is key, IF there are people
who'll gladly donate to the cause, or will raise donations for the
cause, then Lance has an obligation of sorts to make sure that every
available dollar is raised.

If the market will bear a $15k donation price tag for a chance to spend
the day riding with him, and he rides with people for less than that,
then he's be cheating the cause out of every dollar he doesn't charge.

Don't be so bitter, little man. Just accept the fact that no matter
how good you are, or become, there'll always be someone better than
you. Lance just happens to be one of those people who's better than
you. You don't have to hate him for it. Hate your parents if you feel
compelled to hate someone. They're probably responsible for not
raising you right and leading to your shortcomings. Besides, they
probably hate you.

Fred
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I myself am well aware of what is done with the money raised.....what
>> is your point?

>
> Considering your obvious jealousy and pettiness, you may refuse to get
> this, but I'll try to explain it to you.
>
> Lance has proclaimed himself as having a mission, nay, a calling... to
> advance the battle against cancer. He's doing that by raising money to
> help in the research for a cure AND to provide inspiration to those
> battling the disease now and in the future.
>
> So, one thing he can do is participate in fund raising events such as
> the Ride for the Roses. IF, and this is key, IF there are people
> who'll gladly donate to the cause, or will raise donations for the
> cause, then Lance has an obligation of sorts to make sure that every
> available dollar is raised.
>
> If the market will bear a $15k donation price tag for a chance to spend
> the day riding with him, and he rides with people for less than that,
> then he's be cheating the cause out of every dollar he doesn't charge.
>
> Don't be so bitter, little man. Just accept the fact that no matter
> how good you are, or become, there'll always be someone better than
> you. Lance just happens to be one of those people who's better than
> you. You don't have to hate him for it. Hate your parents if you feel
> compelled to hate someone. They're probably responsible for not
> raising you right and leading to your shortcomings. Besides, they
> probably hate you.
>
> Fred
>


Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's acquisition.
Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons of
the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So if
ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would you
ever raise an objection? Please explain to us exactly how you know that
Armstrong is better than the original poster and in what way he's better.
Thanks.
 
G

gds

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's acquisition.
> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons of
> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So if
> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would you
> ever raise an objection?


So, are you arguing that we should dismantle the public library system
and abandon public education because of the huge donations made by
Carnegie and Rockefeller?
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> I myself am well aware of what is done with the money raised.....what
> >> is your point?

> >
> > Considering your obvious jealousy and pettiness, you may refuse to get
> > this, but I'll try to explain it to you.
> >
> > Lance has proclaimed himself as having a mission, nay, a calling... to
> > advance the battle against cancer. He's doing that by raising money to
> > help in the research for a cure AND to provide inspiration to those
> > battling the disease now and in the future.
> >
> > So, one thing he can do is participate in fund raising events such as
> > the Ride for the Roses. IF, and this is key, IF there are people
> > who'll gladly donate to the cause, or will raise donations for the
> > cause, then Lance has an obligation of sorts to make sure that every
> > available dollar is raised.
> >
> > If the market will bear a $15k donation price tag for a chance to spend
> > the day riding with him, and he rides with people for less than that,
> > then he's be cheating the cause out of every dollar he doesn't charge.
> >
> > Don't be so bitter, little man. Just accept the fact that no matter
> > how good you are, or become, there'll always be someone better than
> > you. Lance just happens to be one of those people who's better than
> > you. You don't have to hate him for it. Hate your parents if you feel
> > compelled to hate someone. They're probably responsible for not
> > raising you right and leading to your shortcomings. Besides, they
> > probably hate you.
> >
> > Fred
> >

>
> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's acquisition.
> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons of
> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So if
> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would you
> ever raise an objection? Please explain to us exactly how you know that
> Armstrong is better than the original poster and in what way he's better.
> Thanks.


He's achieved greater accomplishments AND he is able on the open market
to command more money for his services.

BTW, he's better than you, too. (or me, for that matter, but I harbor
no jealosy or ill-will toward him)
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
>> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's
>> acquisition.
>> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
>> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons
>> of
>> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So
>> if
>> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would
>> you
>> ever raise an objection?

>
> So, are you arguing that we should dismantle the public library system
> and abandon public education because of the huge donations made by
> Carnegie and Rockefeller?
>

Not at all.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> I myself am well aware of what is done with the money raised.....what
>> >> is your point?
>> >
>> > Considering your obvious jealousy and pettiness, you may refuse to get
>> > this, but I'll try to explain it to you.
>> >
>> > Lance has proclaimed himself as having a mission, nay, a calling... to
>> > advance the battle against cancer. He's doing that by raising money to
>> > help in the research for a cure AND to provide inspiration to those
>> > battling the disease now and in the future.
>> >
>> > So, one thing he can do is participate in fund raising events such as
>> > the Ride for the Roses. IF, and this is key, IF there are people
>> > who'll gladly donate to the cause, or will raise donations for the
>> > cause, then Lance has an obligation of sorts to make sure that every
>> > available dollar is raised.
>> >
>> > If the market will bear a $15k donation price tag for a chance to spend
>> > the day riding with him, and he rides with people for less than that,
>> > then he's be cheating the cause out of every dollar he doesn't charge.
>> >
>> > Don't be so bitter, little man. Just accept the fact that no matter
>> > how good you are, or become, there'll always be someone better than
>> > you. Lance just happens to be one of those people who's better than
>> > you. You don't have to hate him for it. Hate your parents if you feel
>> > compelled to hate someone. They're probably responsible for not
>> > raising you right and leading to your shortcomings. Besides, they
>> > probably hate you.
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >

>>
>> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
>> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's
>> acquisition.
>> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
>> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons
>> of
>> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So
>> if
>> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would
>> you
>> ever raise an objection? Please explain to us exactly how you know that
>> Armstrong is better than the original poster and in what way he's better.
>> Thanks.

>
> He's achieved greater accomplishments AND he is able on the open market
> to command more money for his services.


What, in your world view, constitutes a great accomplishment? Is commanding
money for services a mark of greatness? If yes, please explain your
rationale.

>
> BTW, he's better than you, too. (or me, for that matter, but I harbor
> no jealosy or ill-will toward him)


We are all born. We all die. Who is better?

>
 
S

Steve

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's

acquisition.
> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons

of
> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So if
> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would you
> ever raise an objection? Please explain to us exactly how you know that
> Armstrong is better than the original poster and in what way he's better.
> Thanks.
>
>

Laff, you are so predictable. What exactly is his ill-gotten gain ? You hate
lance so much that it makes your eyeballs spin.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]read4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
>> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's

> acquisition.
>> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of it
>> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil barons

> of
>> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So
>> if
>> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would
>> you
>> ever raise an objection? Please explain to us exactly how you know that
>> Armstrong is better than the original poster and in what way he's better.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>

> Laff, you are so predictable. What exactly is his ill-gotten gain ? You
> hate
> lance so much that it makes your eyeballs spin.


Obtained illegally or by improper means (e.g., lying and cheating).
 
Fred sure seems to think he knows a lot about me.Fred,I cannot recall
us meeting? You seem to harbor some unadvised ill-will towards anyone
who dares question what Lance Armstrong does.I just raised a point that
a lot of folks in Austin are wondering about and bingo you proceed to
tell me I "hate" Lance Armstrong (never met the fellow myself) and that
I am being petty.Now I am not sure what you mean be "petty" but if it
is good then you are probably correct.But hey,dont rip and tell me what
I hate because you do not know me (do you?) and you make yourself
appear to be a mean person and I do not think you are...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Fred sure seems to think he knows a lot about me.Fred,I cannot recall
> us meeting? You seem to harbor some unadvised ill-will towards anyone
> who dares question what Lance Armstrong does.I just raised a point that
> a lot of folks in Austin are wondering about and bingo you proceed to
> tell me I "hate" Lance Armstrong (never met the fellow myself) and that
> I am being petty.Now I am not sure what you mean be "petty" but if it
> is good then you are probably correct.But hey,dont rip and tell me what
> I hate because you do not know me (do you?) and you make yourself
> appear to be a mean person and I do not think you are...


You've got it all wrong. I've never met you, but I've met lot's of
people like you. And, from what you say, I bet I know more about you
than you realize.

For the record, I don't care one bit about Armstrong, or Landis, or
Basso, or any of those guys. What pisses me off is seeing soooo many
posters who have nothing better to say than "so and so cheated". More
often than not it's someone who feels they could've made it BUT for all
the guys who cheat, AND of course they themselves won't cheat.

There's a process for a reason and so many folks on the group DON'T
seem to care much about waiting to see how it all plays out, they just
start slamming folks, making unsubstantiated allegations, etc...

And there are the folks who make demeaning, deragatory comments for who
knows what reason. For example, if you're not an Armstrong hater, why
would you bother to post the original message in this thread? You can
say you don't care about him, but your last three sentences portray
your true feelings.

Fred
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Fred sure seems to think he knows a lot about me.Fred,I cannot recall
>> us meeting? You seem to harbor some unadvised ill-will towards anyone
>> who dares question what Lance Armstrong does.I just raised a point that
>> a lot of folks in Austin are wondering about and bingo you proceed to
>> tell me I "hate" Lance Armstrong (never met the fellow myself) and that
>> I am being petty.Now I am not sure what you mean be "petty" but if it
>> is good then you are probably correct.But hey,dont rip and tell me what
>> I hate because you do not know me (do you?) and you make yourself
>> appear to be a mean person and I do not think you are...

>
> You've got it all wrong. I've never met you, but I've met lot's of
> people like you. And, from what you say, I bet I know more about you
> than you realize.


I've never met you but I know more about you than you may think. For
example, I know that you're a asshole. Enjoy the evening anyway.
 
M

Mike Jacoubowsky

Guest
>>> Fred, perhaps it comes down to whether or not you believe money is
>>> ideologically pure and can not be tainted by the method of it's
>>> acquisition.
>>> Some people who lie and cheat to get their money and fame give lots of
>>> it
>>> away to achieve legitimacy in the community. The railroad and oil
>>> barons of
>>> the19th century (and one could well argue today) are good examples. So
>>> if
>>> ill-gotten fame leads to the ability to raise money for charity, would
>>> you
>>> ever raise an objection?

>>
>> So, are you arguing that we should dismantle the public library system
>> and abandon public education because of the huge donations made by
>> Carnegie and Rockefeller?
>>

> Not at all.


But rather that the money was tainted and perhaps shouldn't have been
accepted in the first place? Nothing wrong with syaing that; just wondering
if that's the case.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com