KTMike Mitglied
  • Mitglied seit 25. Juni 2001
  • Letzte Aktivität:

Beiträge von KTMike

    Danke danke danke :love: :love: :love:

    Bin nach einer super genialen Überraschungsparty so langsam wieder nüchtern - bei den Ü40 dauert das halt nen bisschen länger :teufelgri

    Ich glaube der ein oder andere hier im Forum kann das nachvollziehen ....

    Wer war eigentlich noch mal der Forumsmethusalem ;) ????

    FYI - das Problem mit dem Kupplungskorb hatte ich auch...
    Lass Dir am besten direkt vom Haendler das verstaerkte 2003 Teil reinbauen (wenn Du sie denn kaufen willst).
    Dann kann da zumindest nix mehr so schnell passieren.

    Ich hab das Moeppel sofort nachdem der Korb gebrochen war nicht mehr bewegt und somit Glueck gehabt das die losen Teile nicht weiteren Schaden angerichtet haben...


    Ansonnsten bin ich mit dem Teil super zufrieden... Der Motor erzeugt bei mir immer wieder ein massiv breites grinsen... :love:

    @ Tordi

    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!! Genau das isse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :respekt: :prosit: :respekt: :prosit: :respekt:

    Spitze - danach hab ich echt ewig gesucht - Merci

    P.S. Das bist aber nicht Du auf dem Bild - oder???:teufelgri

    Ja genau.... ist aber irgendwie wie verhext - zumindest ich finde da nix mehr an Bildmaterial...

    Also falls da jemand noch was im Keller liegen hat - bitte scannen und rein hier...

    Ich geb auch ne Runde :pop: aus...

    Moin, moin,

    ich bin auf der Suche nach einem Bild von der HRD RP 80 Cross. War damals zu MT/MTX und DT Zeiten das mit Abstand schaerfste Geraet auf dem Markt. (Mein Cousin hatte eine - und der Depp hat sie verkauf...:rolling: )

    Das gleich gilt fuer Cimatti und co.

    P.S. Ein Thread ueber die besten 80er (LKR) aus den besagten 80ern wuerde hier auch gut hinpassen...:moped:

    P.S.2 Ja ich hab schon mal in der :suchen: geschaut - aber da is nix mit Bildern zu den zwei Moppeds...

    @ FrankSt

    Guter Link - ich glaube ich werde das ganze mal an einer alten Fahrradfelge austesten

    Und falls ich mich zu doof anstelle die 11880 anrufen und nach jemanden fragen der sich damit auskennt ... :biggrin:



    ich hab mir bei einer Auffahrt an einer Felskante eine leichte Unwucht in die Forderradfelge gehauen (Seitenschlag).

    Der Effekt ist das das Vorderrad nun so zwischen 10 und 30 km/h pendelt.

    Hab ihr da Tipps wie ich diese Unwucht relativ einfach beseitigen kann? (Hab mal in einem MTB Forum gelesen das koennte ueber entsprechendes Spannen der Speichen beseitigt werden ???)


    Falls ihr noch nach nem Design sucht...
    Der Cpt. Oern hat mal fuer die OWLer was ziemliche geiles entwickelt (ist leider nie in Produktion gegangen)
    Aber vielleicht hat er die Entwuerfe noch ....

    (Wenn ja vielleicht mal posten)

    So langsam dämmert es auch den Jungs in den USA....

    Interessanter Artikel in der New York Times

    New York Times

    Dancing Alone

    Published: May 13, 2004

    It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?
    "Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."
    Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.
    I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics.
    Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr. Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.
    Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.
    And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.")
    Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence.

    und noch ein guter....

    New York Times

    Clash of Civilizations

    Published: May 13, 2004
    Testifying before the Senate yesterday, General Richard Myers admitted that we're checkmated in Iraq.
    "There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq," he said, describing the generals' consensus. "There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq."
    Talk about the sound of one hand clapping. And they say John Kerry is on both sides of issues.
    Sounding like Mr. Kerry, General Myers summed up: "This process has to be internationalized. The U.N. has to play the governance role. That's how we're, in my view, eventually going to win."
    The administration's demented quest to conquer Arab hearts and minds has dissolved in a torrent of pornography denigrating other parts of the Arab anatomy. George Bush, who swept into office on a cloud of moral umbrage, now has his own sex scandal — one with far greater implications than titillating cigar jokes.
    The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look un-American. Should we really be reduced to defending ourselves by saying at least we don't behead people?
    Gripped in a "I can't look at them — I've got to look at them" state of mind, lawmakers grimly filed into private screening rooms on the Hill to check out the 1,800 grotesque images of sex, humiliation and torture.
    "They're disgusting," Senator Dianne Feinstein told me. "If somebody wanted to plan a clash of civilizations, this is how they'd do it. These pictures play into every stereotype of America that Arabs have: America as debauched, America as hypocrites.
    "Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz act like they know all the answers, almost like a divine right," she said. "They don't have a divine right, and they are wrong."
    After 9/11, America had the support and sympathy of the world. Now, awash in digital evidence of uncivilized behavior, America has careered into a war of civilizations. The pictures were clearly meant to use the codebook of Muslim anxieties about nudity and sexual and gender humiliation to break down the prisoners.
    Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell said some photographs seemed to show Iraqi women being commanded to expose their breasts — such debasement, after a war that President Bush partly based on women's rights.
    The problem, of course, is that the war in Iraq started with lies — that Saddam's W.M.D. were endangering our security and that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
    In a public relations move that cheapens the heroism of soldiers, the Pentagon merged the medals for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving the G.W.O.T. medal, for Global War on Terrorism, in both wars to reinforce the idea that we had to invade Iraq to quell terrorism. The truth is that our invasion of Iraq spurred terrorism there and around the world.
    That initial deception — and headlong rush to throw off international conventions and old alliances, and namby-pamby institutions like the U.N. and the Red Cross — led straight to the abuse of Abu Ghraib. Now the question is whether the C.I.A. tortured Al Qaeda operatives.
    Officials blurred the lines to justify ideological decisions, calling every Iraqi who opposed us a "terrorist"; conducting rough interrogations, perhaps to find the nonexistent W.M.D. so they would not look foolish; rolling all opposition into one scary terrorist ball that did not require sensitivity to the Geneva Conventions or "humanitarian do-gooders," to use the phrase of Senator James Inhofe, a Republican.
    Senator Fritz Hollings made it clear yesterday that Rummy has left us undermanned and undertrained in Iraq — another factor in the torture scandal. "Now, in a country of 25 million, you're trying to secure it with 135,000," he scolded Mr. Rumsfeld, adding: "We're trying to win the hearts and minds as we're killing them and torturing them." At least, he said sarcastically, Gen. William Westmoreland never asked a Vietcong general to take the town, "like we have for Falluja. We've asked the enemy general to take the town."
    The hawks, who promised us garlands in Iraq, should have recalled the words of the historian Daniel Boorstin, who warned that planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers.