Search results for:

Google namrick, they will have what you need. Dunno if they'll post to Denmark but worth an ask

http://www.yr.no

Works well for the UK

I don't know if you're considering the bridge at St. Nazaire? If so, I've heard it's an experience you could live without....
Also that big old forest below Bordeaux (les Landes?), try to get it over with fairly quickly, as I've found that it gets very boring very quickly, due to cycling on very straight flat roads for miles on end.
Personally I found Bayonne/Biarritz all to be rather shite, so would rush over to lovely Spain the same day and get on with eating loads, especially in San Sebastian.
That's all a bit negative though really I think, so on a positive note, cycling in France is great to say the least. Wine, bread, cheese, pastries, melon, orangina, beaches, car-free A-roads, pro-cycling locals... I'm jealous.

Yet dumb fucks in their millions will continue to buy The Sun every working day, repeating their mantra of idiocy "yeah but it's just a bit of fun innit"

Fucking Tax Credits! Useless fucking dogshit system designed and run by total utter fucking CUNTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This must weigh a bit with all that ply.
And a 128 tooth cog that close to my knackers? No thanks.
Bloody good job though.

http://bicycledesign.net/2011/04/splinter-bike-and-the-wooden-bicycle-land-speed-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BicycleDesign+%28Bicycle+Design%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23945179-minister-for-cycling-refuses-to-back-pedal-in-helmet-row.do

Norman Baker rightly takes the stand against compulsory helmet-wearing, and is opposed by the road safety charity "Brake"; funny how many of their corporate sponsors are insurance companies...

That's because I fell off my bike and hit my head.

You missed that helmets are not cool, but apart from that I kinda agree.

The only reason helmets are seen as uncool is because they're simply a substitute for having a large sign stuck to your face that says "look at me I'm irrational"

I'd heartily recommend booking your train ticket from Mumbai southwards ASAP - like before you get to India.
Otherwise you may well find yourself waiting for a space on a train for a few days watching all your holiday cash disappear in costly Mumbai.
Dr.Dandapani in Wembley (listed here http://www.indianrail.gov.in/international_Tourist.html) is where I booked mine, although you may be able to do it online now for all I know.
Once you're elsewhere in India though it's a piece of piss to get tickets.

YouTube- Everything is OK Montage

In a sport full of cheats, Armstrong is king.
Not much to shout about really.

good description of yourself there son.

It's the internet. Hypocrisy and incomprehension is where it's at.

Wow, someone ill-advisedly uses the term 'racist' against a party of downright xenophobes and then you get 2 pages of smartarses laying into them as if they were in some way guilty of outright bigotry themselves?
If you want to obscure more important issues via smugness and one-upmanship, that's the way to do it. Elitist, but-too-weak-to-vote-tory twats ftw.

Baby wipes shift fucking anything. Truth.

It's true. You'd wonder whether it's OK to use them on an actual baby.

Oh and http://www.green-oil.net/shop.html by the way. I use the degreaser and it seems to work, although I'm sure some degreasing professional will be along to say otherwise.

If you can make a high quality made-to-measure frame out of a 631 tubeset, with an enamelled paint job of matching quality for less than £1000, and also manage to pay your rent with the profits, I'll buy one off you.

"Bicycle Website Attracts Idiots Shocker"

Jesus, what a fuckwit.

Where does it say that: "Anacrchism passionately believes in order"? With my limited knowledge of anarchism that does sound pretty contradictory as keeping order has usually meant there has to be a ruling body of at least some sort.

But I guess we can continue this till the end of our days (which, according to our Angel -- and thankfully! -- are due in just a few years).

I, again, refer to Wikipedia:
*Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
*
To you anarchy means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing.

That's a bit like saying "To you quantum physics means one thing and to me it is something not completely, but to a great deal, different thing"

i.e. if you want to be able to understand a subject at a greater depth than the (often inaccurate) broad-brush that is Wikipedia, you simply have to go and read about it. Until then it is rather stating the obvious that it means something different to you than it does to others.

Still, what I am trying to say is that there are always rulers. And in that sense anarchy (the lack of rulers) cannot exist in a society of any size nor cannot a society of any size be based on anarchy (or the lack of rulers).

I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

I see your point completely and agree with you. And so would any intelligent exponent of an anarchistic political movement, and they would probably agree with you.
But that excludes the brick throwing brew-heads that most people (including themselves) incorrectly think to be anarchists. I think the people on both sides of that argument are as ignorant as each other.

Yeah, well, here we are again.

Um, who makes the rules, then? Who enforces the rules? If it is a larger group or the majority of the community, I think it is democracy. And if it is a smaller posse, isn't it oligarchy?

I think you're assuming that people who favour a particular form of politics want, like petulant children, to have that form in it's entirety, instead of taking major elements of it to form a practicable policy.
An *ideal *anarchy would be more closely related to true democracy than the bastardised form of "democracy" that our country currently has.
But it's not going to happen so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

True. I did not read the whole article.

I base my view on the original meaning of the word. To me "without ruler" means just that. And the "ruler" can be a group of people, too. Hence I cannot see how anarchy would be anything else than pure chaos.

Isn't there a word for the small communities thing? Why do people need to label it as anarchistic?

People don't really "label it" as anarchistic.
Their choice of the term is based on the historical political ideas that are central to the philosophy of anarchy, particularly popular in the 19th century.
Unfortunately the term in both it's "proper" form and it's populist form refers to chaos and disorder.
The only people who associate anarchy with "chaos and disorder" are those who do not understand it as a political concept (including the balaclava wearing fools present on almost all protest marches), and those who seek to denigrate the idea because they do not agree with it, or because they see the balaclavas and can think no further than "bloody anarchists".

If you want to talk about anarchy as a political ideal, then you have to read about it - which I have not done enough of.
If you want to talk about blokes in balaclavas throwing bricks, then you can use the same word, but you are fairly ignorantly dismissing as idiots a fairly important political movement.

I should think that is because your definition of anarchy comes from Wikipedia, and maybe from a subconscious memory of what you may have read in the popular press or on internet forums.
What TT Tom is probably talking about is anarchy as a political philosophy.
From the same Wikipedia page, something you neglected to read:

"The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities"

So, to you, the definition of Anarchy from Wikipedia does not ring true?

* "No rulership or enforced authority."
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
* "Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

Anarchy = Anarchy.

I do not see a small community based model as anything resembling anarchy.

Thing is, if you go around calling everyone in a balaclava or a protest an "anarchist" then you may well be lacking an understanding of what anarchism is - just like the people you are slating.

your argument fails to notice that in the past two years the price of track frames has raised massively, and that this frame is relatively rare and in near perfect condition

In the last two years? 4 years ago riding a track frame was a cheap way to get a good bike that would enable you to do some mileage.
Thanks to people wanking on about rarity etc. and generally being poseurs it is now an expensive way to get a shit bike.
eBay the frame, it's not that precious.