British Heart Foundation Peak District Ride

publicenergy

Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!

According to the info at www.bhf.org.uk (use event finder / bike
rides), the route is changing to one they used a few years ago. So
it'll be a little different when I try again next April. Hopefully,
much easier after a year of lots of cycling
Anyone else tried this and doing it again in '05 ?

BHF

publicenergy wrote:
> Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
> and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
> at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
> Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
> called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
> at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!
>
> According to the info at www.bhf.org.uk (use event finder / bike
> rides), the route is changing to one they used a few years ago. So
> it'll be a little different when I try again next April. Hopefully,
> much easier after a year of lots of cycling
> Anyone else tried this and doing it again in '05 ?
>

http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/

May have some useful info.

publicenergy

BHF wrote:
> publicenergy wrote:
>
>> Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last year
>> and found it challenging but then I'd only just got back in to cycling
>> at the time after many years. I remember lots of hills (well, it is the
>> Peak district I suppose!) but in particular climbing through a village
>> called Stanton In The Peak which was a killer. I recall people cheering
>> at the top when people made it over the brow of that one!
>
> http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/
>
> May have some useful info.

Well, I bet that's cheered everyone up.

--
[ A stairway to oblivion is better than no stairway at all ]

Jon Senior

BHF wrote:
> http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/
>
> May have some useful info.

Or may be another page of outdated photos and misinformation. Get thee
under thy bridge, pitiful troll!

Jon

BHF

Jon Senior wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>> http://www.britishheartlessfoundation.com/
>>
>> May have some useful info.
>
>
> Or may be another page of outdated photos and misinformation. Get thee
> under thy bridge, pitiful troll!
>
> Jon

And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the BHF
conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
..
..
..


Not.

Jon Senior

BHF wrote:
> And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the BHF
> conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.

Sure. Most of the photos come from very early work before current
regulations and best practice were put into place. They are also
carefully selected for their shocking effect. The equipment shown in the
photos is very old.

As for the accuracy of the information, it's hard to tell. There are no
citations for the studies that are described that would allow the reader
to confirm or deny what was claimed, nor is there any explanation of why
the BHF choose to fund experiments which if the website is to be
believed are completely pointless. Perhaps you believe that they just
like hurting cute animals.

No-one has yet successfully argued against animal testing using anything
other than emotive language. So to reverse the trend... my father has
angina. It's entirely probable that work sponsored by the BHF was
helpful in the production of the drugs that may save his life in an
emergency. If it came down to your parents, how strongly would you
support your cause? N.B. One of the leading anti-vivisection protesters
is currently on a course of (animal tested) chemotherapy to try and save
her life. Two-faced? Apparently so.

Jon

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Perhaps you believe that they just
> like hurting cute animals.
>

But they do!
http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4049&n=1

Tony

BHF

Jon Senior wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>> And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the BHF
>> conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
>
>
> Sure. Most of the photos come from very early work before current
> regulations and best practice were put into place. They are also
> carefully selected for their shocking effect. The equipment shown in the
> photos is very old.


The age of the equipment is irrelevant. The BHF conduct animal
experiments then and now.


> As for the accuracy of the information, it's hard to tell. There are no
> citations for the studies that are described that would allow the reader
> to confirm or deny what was claimed, nor is there any explanation of why
> the BHF choose to fund experiments which if the website is to be
> believed are completely pointless. Perhaps you believe that they just
> like hurting cute animals.

I have view based on various sources. There are many ignorant people
paying money into charities, not knowing where the money goes.

The site may lead people into doing some of their own research before
blindly giving.

>
> No-one has yet successfully argued against animal testing using anything
> other than emotive language.

Try the library. I can recommend some books.


So to reverse the trend... my father has
> angina. It's entirely probable that work sponsored by the BHF was
> helpful in the production of the drugs that may save his life in an
> emergency. If it came down to your parents, how strongly would you
> support your cause?

Both dead. If they were alive they should get the best treatment
possible. There would be no benefit to them or the animals that suffered
in testing the drugs or procedures in not accepting it.

You or I can't change history.


N.B. One of the leading anti-vivisection protesters
> is currently on a course of (animal tested) chemotherapy to try and save
> her life. Two-faced? Apparently so.

I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
undo past wrongs.

There needs to be more information about where these charities spend
their money. I realize that the site I linked to biased ( I think it's a
poor web site), but perhaps others should question the real BHF site and
information in the same way.


Charity does not always equal good.



>
> Jon

Simonb

BHF wrote:

> I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
> undo past wrongs.

Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?

BHF

Simonb wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
>>undo past wrongs.
>
>
> Are you really this stupid? Is anyone?
>
>

What will it do to the past then?

Do you have access to a time machine, or are you stupid?

Tony Raven

BHF wrote:
>
> I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
> undo past wrongs.
>

Yes but it financially rewards the drug company for past wrongs and
gives them money to fund future wrongs. Time to forgo all non-generic
drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.

Of course if you had the courage of your convictions you wouldn't switch
to posting under a totally anonymous name just for this topic. Now I
wonder which of the urc members uses PlusNet and Thunderbird v0.8
(Windows/20040913)?

Tony

Not Responding

BHF wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>> BHF wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm sure you know why the photographs don't represent work the
>>> BHF conduct, and what is inaccurate about the information.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure. Most of the photos come from very early work before current
>> regulations and best practice were put into place. They are also
>> carefully selected for their shocking effect. The equipment shown in
>> the photos is very old.
>
>
>
> The age of the equipment is irrelevant. The BHF conduct animal
> experiments then and now.
>

That's a good thing to most people, I'd have thought. And hardly a suprise.

If you are trying to say that the BHF carries out *unnecessary* animal
experiments (ie they do it for fun), I think you'll need a lot more in
the way of proof than the rather sorry collection of dog-eared shock
pics on that site.

BHF2

Tony Raven wrote:
> BHF wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't see it as two faced. The use of the drug won't do anything to
>> undo past wrongs.
>>
>
> Yes but it financially rewards the drug company for past wrongs and
> gives them money to fund future wrongs.


People can change the policies of these companies by increasing public
awareness, etc.


>Time to forgo all non-generic
> drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.

No.


>
> Of course if you had the courage of your convictions you wouldn't switch
> to posting under a totally anonymous name just for this topic. Now I
> wonder which of the urc members uses PlusNet and Thunderbird v0.8
> (Windows/20040913)?

Ad hominem. I can and will post with what ever name / ISP / software I
want. You can guess when I've used them, if it keeps you amused.


>
> Tony

Tony Raven

BHF2 wrote:

>
> People can change the policies of these companies by increasing public
> awareness, etc.
>
>
>> Time to forgo all non-generic
>> drugs I'm afraid or lose your integrity.
>
>
> No.
>

So you won't object then if we support the BHF research while you
support the drug companies' research by using their drugs

>
> Ad hominem. I can and will post with what ever name / ISP / software I
> want. You can guess when I've used them, if it keeps you amused.
>

Feel free to hide behind whatever masks you wish

Tony