Originally Posted by
cyccommute
No. Omiak could have told us about interesting bike tour but he had to cop a "holier-than-thou" attitude about it. Bekologist may have been a little prickly in his response but that's just the way he is. He's also quite knowledgeable about touring, as am I and many other people who post here. Getting all up in our grills and evangelizing about touring on the cheap and the evils of consumerism isn't the way to impress people who have probably been there, done that and have the t-shirt.
I doubt that Bekologist has read a magazine ad and let it influence his touring choices in about as long as it's been for me...and that's going on 20+ years for me now. There never has been too many magazine ads aimed at those of us who tour and they get fewer and fewer every year. I'm also certain that Bekologist is as well aware of his 'ultimate' goal as I am. Neither of us are new to touring. We know what touring is about, and it's not about the gear.
In the end, Omiak, you made this about consumerism. It was reverse consumerism but consumerism nevertheless. Try again. Make your story about the trip, not the equipment. I am a gear head and I love equipment but I'm more interested in your trip then your equipment. Papa Tom is right about making sure what your goals are. But your goal...i.e. the trip...was lost in the noise of your message.
For what it's worth I read the comment "don't let your wanderlust get translated into consumerism" as meaning nothing more than a statement that if you want to go and see the world you can do it very cheaply if you want to. If you've got $10,000 and want to drop it all on a touring bike you'll only use for a fortnight you can do that, but it's not necessary.
I found it an interesting comment given how many discussions take place here about how much it's likely to cost per day to go touring, just another data point at one end of the scale.