On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:51:20 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2012-08-03, F Murtz wrote:


Disables the light.

Weird. One would have thought that opening the dor was "work" and
therefore not allowed, so it doesn't matter if the light comes on. But
then, I am not Jewish.

Lighting a fire is forbidden, and turning a light on is considered byh
some to be equivalent to lighting a fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activit...ted_on_Shabbat

For more about what Jews may and may not do during Shabbat.

Just read that 'out of interest' and all I can say is _bizarre_

Sorry to offend any believers in sky fairies but ...

This *is* the 21st century you know :-)

Avpx

On 03/08/2012 18:31, The Nomad wrote:

Just read that 'out of interest' and all I can say is _bizarre_

Sorry to offend any believers in sky fairies but ...

This *is* the 21st century you know :-)

I think the UK is particularly irreligious by World standards. Probably
well under 10% are actively religious, with the vast majority being
nominally some sort of religion but actually not participating in any way.

Assuming you were brought up here, you may find it somewhat odd just how
many religious people there are around in the 21st century. Go to India,
and more or less everybody is religious. The USA - I don't know the
percentage, but I would guess that 50% are actively religious. And so on.

Of course, if you were religious, you would see nothing bizarre in
trying to interpret God's will (or Gods' wills for polytheists) and
acting accordingly. I cannot for the life of me see what is more bizarre
about not switching lights on than about taking communion, say, or using
horse drawn buggies.

"News" wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
Huge wrote

There are a number of sub-sects of Amish. The ones you see on TV are
always the more moderate ones, since the "hard line" Amish, who eschew
most modern technology, will not allow themselves to be filmed.

And even the more relaxed of them have stupid rules on the colors
you can have your horse drawn things painted, and what color
braces etc you can wear. Completely off with the ****ing fairys.

But does it matter? Why not let them live their life as they choose.
They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

The evidence from the past indicates that religion does serious harm to
many.
Especially those the religious consider to be inferior due to them not being
a member of their superior religion.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
charles wrote:
and much closer to home - on the Island of Scalpay - there is a sign
stating that the children's playground is closed on Sunday. Can't have
anyone - even children - enjoying themselves on the Sabbath.

Could be to give those who live close some rest from the noise?

Children playing is not noise.


5 chavs with lawn-mower-engined "scooters"?
--
Tim Watts

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
"News" wrote in message news:FX9$RMiTm8GQFw

But does it matter? Why not let them live their life as they choose.
They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

The evidence from the past indicates that religion does serious harm to
many.

Oh indeed, I'm certainly not disputing that, but we're discussing what
many see as the 'strange' lives of, in this case, Amish and Jews.
Strange to us perhaps, but not doing us any harm, so why the problem?

I remember the first time I visited Lancaster County, in the US, what
amazed and to a certain extent sickened me was not the Amish and how
they lived their lives, but the huge buses full of USAians paying good
money to drive around and gawp at these people. To the average modern
American, the Amish are today's freak show. The modern equivalent of
the dwarf, or bearded lady, or elephant man.
--
Graeme

News wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
"News" wrote in message news:FX9$RMiTm8GQFw

But does it matter? Why not let them live their life as they choose.
They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

The evidence from the past indicates that religion does serious harm
to many.

Oh indeed, I'm certainly not disputing that, but we're discussing what
many see as the 'strange' lives of, in this case, Amish and Jews.
Strange to us perhaps, but not doing us any harm, so why the problem?

I remember the first time I visited Lancaster County, in the US, what
amazed and to a certain extent sickened me was not the Amish and how
they lived their lives, but the huge buses full of USAians paying good
money to drive around and gawp at these people. To the average modern
American, the Amish are today's freak show. The modern equivalent of
the dwarf, or bearded lady, or elephant man.

so are we.
I overheard some pretty outrageous **** from an Air force colonel once
at the next table.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:06:33 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:



The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....



A while back there was masses of disagreement about some north London
eruv. Rationale for having it seemed entirely to permit less stringent
rules governing sabbath - which itself sounds like a bit of a cop-out.

But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an eruv.
Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live in an area
which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any logical reason but
can't help feeling that my freedom to live within or without is removed if
one is put up around my house. (For clarity - I do NOT live in such a
location - simply hypothesising.)

On the other hand, why not one tiny inverted eruv leaving the entire rest
of the world to be deemed within an eruv?

--
Rod

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:39:51 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , polygonum
writes
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:22:38 +0100, Davey wrote:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:35:56 +0100 polygonum
wrote:


Surprised to see what looks very much like OSB lining the Amish house
on the program on BBC2 right now.

Always get the impression that anything less than two centuries old
(in technology terms) is too modern. But that is very likely based on
much ignorance.


Not to mention the Fridge, the 'phone (in an outhouse!) and the solar
panels.

I wasn't really watching - but I did later notice several things like
that. I can't get my head round why walking to a phone makes it OK...

It makes as much sense as all the other "get arounds" that exist in most
religions

The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....

I was going to mention that as being one of the most ridiculous, but
decided that if I started with one, the list could soon become almost
endless


--
geoff

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:06:33 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:



The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....



A while back there was masses of disagreement about some north London
eruv. Rationale for having it seemed entirely to permit less stringent
rules governing sabbath - which itself sounds like a bit of a cop-out.

But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an eruv.
Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live in an area
which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any logical reason but
can't help feeling that my freedom to live within or without is removed
if one is put up around my house. (For clarity - I do NOT live in such a
location - simply hypothesising.)

If you're not a Jew, living inside the north London eruv has no effect
on you whatsoever. The only difference you might notice would be in the
behaviour of your orthodox Jewish neighbours during Shabbat.

On the other hand, why not one tiny inverted eruv leaving the entire
rest of the world to be deemed within an eruv?

Logic dictates that the inside of the eruv must be smaller than the
outside, as the eruv is the boundary between the dwelling place and the
rest of the world.

Rabbinical law also forbids it, as far as I can see.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Owain wrote
wrote

Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine
if you've got legs. A bicycle is almost the most
efficient method of using human power for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,

Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy
than riding a bike over the same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.

It is in fact much more complicated than that.

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:46:02 +0100, GB wrote:

It makes as much sense as all the other "get arounds" that exist in
most religions

The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....


You just don't understand the finer points of religious reasoning. An
eruv is a boundary wall taken to its most minimal extreme. You start off
by asking what a wall is, and move on to asking whether it's still a
wall if it's not in good condition. Everybody would agree it is. Then,
what if it has holes in? Sure, that's okay. So, what if the holes are
really big holes? That's okay, too. So, you end up with an eruv, which
is a wall with a simply huge hole in it.

It's all perfectly logical, but if you think of it as a boundary marker
you may be happier. It's no different, really, from the boundary line
between neighbouring counties, but even that tenuous line acts as a
barrier to policemen.

Yes, but the bit where a very small enclosed spec is taken to be the
'outside' and the rest of the world the 'inside' was what took the
biscuit! A bit like the guy and his hut in HHGttG...

But if someone were to cut the corf, unbeknownst to them, would it still
be (jewish) society's duty to put them to death ?


--
geoff

In message , John Williamson
writes
polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:06:33 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:


The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....



A while back there was masses of disagreement about some north London
eruv. Rationale for having it seemed entirely to permit less stringent
rules governing sabbath - which itself sounds like a bit of a cop-out.
But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an
eruv. Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live in
an area which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any logical
reason but can't help feeling that my freedom to live within or
without is removed if one is put up around my house. (For clarity - I
do NOT live in such a location - simply hypothesising.)

If you're not a Jew, living inside the north London eruv has no effect
on you whatsoever. The only difference you might notice would be in the
behaviour of your orthodox Jewish neighbours during Shabbat.

On the other hand, why not one tiny inverted eruv leaving the entire
rest of the world to be deemed within an eruv?

Logic dictates

Sorry, you've lost me there

--
geoff

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:38:31 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:06:33 +0100, Bob Eager wrote:


The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very small....but
that was considered the 'outside'....



A while back there was masses of disagreement about some north London
eruv. Rationale for having it seemed entirely to permit less stringent
rules governing sabbath - which itself sounds like a bit of a cop-out.
But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an
eruv. Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live in an
area which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any logical
reason but can't help feeling that my freedom to live within or without
is removed if one is put up around my house. (For clarity - I do NOT
live in such a location - simply hypothesising.)

If you're not a Jew, living inside the north London eruv has no effect
on you whatsoever. The only difference you might notice would be in the
behaviour of your orthodox Jewish neighbours during Shabbat.

On the other hand, why not one tiny inverted eruv leaving the entire
rest of the world to be deemed within an eruv?

Logic dictates that the inside of the eruv must be smaller than the
outside, as the eruv is the boundary between the dwelling place and the
rest of the world.

Rabbinical law also forbids it, as far as I can see.


In almost every way I agree that the eruv would make no real difference -
but it still infringes upon my freedom to NOT do so for whatever reason I
might feel applies.

Also rather odd for the eruv to includes all sorts of non-dwelling places
like roads.

--
Rod

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote

Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine
if you've got legs. A bicycle is almost the most
efficient method of using human power for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,

Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy
than riding a bike over the same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.

It is in fact much more complicated than that.

If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour, you
would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk it. With
the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you had managed to
walk there in that time, you would be ready for the hospital.
That seems pretty basic.
--
Davey.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:38:31 +0100
John Williamson wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:06:33 +0100, Bob Eager
wrote:



The one I like is the eruv.

I once heard of an eruv where the wired off area was very
small....but that was considered the 'outside'....



A while back there was masses of disagreement about some north
London eruv. Rationale for having it seemed entirely to permit less
stringent rules governing sabbath - which itself sounds like a bit
of a cop-out.

But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an
eruv. Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live
in an area which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any
logical reason but can't help feeling that my freedom to live
within or without is removed if one is put up around my house. (For
clarity - I do NOT live in such a location - simply hypothesising.)

If you're not a Jew, living inside the north London eruv has no
effect on you whatsoever. The only difference you might notice would
be in the behaviour of your orthodox Jewish neighbours during Shabbat.

On the other hand, why not one tiny inverted eruv leaving the
entire rest of the world to be deemed within an eruv?

Logic dictates that the inside of the eruv must be smaller than the
outside, as the eruv is the boundary between the dwelling place and
the rest of the world.

At this point, I think we need to ask Dr. Who what he thinks of this
idea.

--
Davey.

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote
Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine
if you've got legs. A bicycle is almost the most
efficient method of using human power for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,
Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy
than riding a bike over the same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.
It is in fact much more complicated than that.

If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour, you
would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk it. With
the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you had managed to
walk there in that time, you would be ready for the hospital.

I am..frankly..flabbergasted.

10 miles is not a onerous walk on any surface a bike works.

Its about 4 hours thats all.

That seems pretty basic.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:40:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000 "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote
Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine if you've got legs.
A bicycle is almost the most efficient method of using human power
for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,
Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy than riding a bike over the
same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.
It is in fact much more complicated than that.

If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour, you
would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk it. With
the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you had managed to
walk there in that time, you would be ready for the hospital.

I am..frankly..flabbergasted.

10 miles is not a onerous walk on any surface a bike works.

Its about 4 hours thats all.

That seems pretty basic.

But he said "in an hour".



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 03/08/2012 20:28, polygonum wrote:

But I am not in the least sure that I would want to live inside an eruv.
Why should I be forced to simply because I happened to live in an area
which someone else deems an eruv? Can't think of any logical reason but
can't help feeling that my freedom to live within or without is removed
if one is put up around my house.

I really can't think of any logical reason either, but if that's how you
feel....

BTW, if someone makes a war zone in some other part of the world, how do
you feel about being excluded? After all, your freedom to live within or
without the war zone is removed by the simple fact that the fighting is
taking place elsewhere. And every time a new war zone starts up in some
distant land, your freedom to be included is once again being infringed. ^.^

GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote
GB wrote

Can't be as crazy as the strain of Jewish
religion that forbids ALL work on the sabbath.

I've stayed in a household like that over the sabbath. Once you
get the hang of what's going on, it's actually very relaxing.

Nope, stupidly boring.

That's what I expected before I tried it.

I don't have to try it to know its stupidly boring.

Happens with a power failure etc too, you
can't do any work or entertainment either.

And in that situation, at least I can read.

The worst of the fundys won't even let you do that on the sabbath.

GB wrote

And even the more relaxed of them have stupid rules on the colors
you can have your horse drawn things painted, and what color
braces etc you can wear. Completely off with the ****ing fairys.

Your vehement reaction is almost like you feel threatened by them in some
way.

Pity I'm not. I just think its completely ****ing
stupid to be told how you must dress, and what
colors you can use on your horse drawn things
and what color braces you can wear, etc etc etc.

But this is a group of people 3000 miles away.

So its just a tad unlikely that I do actually feel
threatened by them.

I always objected to having to wear a tie, and to stand
for the national anthem in the picture theater too.


And the way that child molesters get treated by
the Amish is completely ****ing unspeakable.

They don’t do a damned thing about it and wont
even report it to the cops nor is the molester kicked
out of the church or anything. Essentially they use
the completely ****ing stupid line that some
damned god or other has proclaimed that
everyone must be forgiven and not punished.

You do get kicked out if you don’t toe the line
on the color of the braces you wear, or the color
you paint your horse drawn thing tho.

Like I said, completely off with the ****ing fairys.


The only sane thing about that operation is that
they let kids do what they like at a particular age
and let them decide if they want to be Amish or not.

whisky-dave wrote
GB wrote
Bob Eager wrote
GB wrote:

Actually, I don't think that could work as an eruv,
so I am not sure where you got that from?

It was tried in North London a while ago. I think it got slapped down..!

No, there is an eruv in North London. I can't quite see why it would be
slapped down, as it does no harm to anyone. There's a bit of the eruv
wire running through the woods locally. I know where it runs, and I've
looked for it, but I have never been able to spot it. So, it's not
exactly
obtrusive.

So you're saying it's a H&S risk, anyone could fall over it or walk into
it.

Nope, they are well above head height.

News wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Huge wrote

There are a number of sub-sects of Amish. The ones you see on TV are
always the more moderate ones, since the "hard line" Amish, who eschew
most modern technology, will not allow themselves to be filmed.

And even the more relaxed of them have stupid rules on the colors
you can have your horse drawn things painted, and what color
braces etc you can wear. Completely off with the ****ing fairys.

But does it matter?

It does when someone gets molested by one.

Why not let them live their life as they choose.

Because that's got the same problems as child molesting by roman catholic
priests.

They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

They are however doing their kids a hell of a lot of harm.

Man at B&Q wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Davey wrote:
polygonum wrote:

Surprised to see what looks very much like OSB lining
the Amish house on the program on BBC2 right now.

Not to mention the Fridge, the 'phone (in an outhouse!) and the solar

The Amish philosophy is not to adopt a technology just
for the sake of adopting a technology. If it is a
useful tool to accomplish the work they chose to do,
and not a frivoulous toy, then they will use it.

Its MUCH more complicated than that in practice.

That doesn't explain why they refuse to use an engine
in stuff as basic as a bike etc.

A telephone is a useful emergency communication device,

They don't just use the phone in the outhouse for emergencys.

And they'd be a lot better off with the phone in the house for emergencys
anyway.

Who's house,

The house where the emergency happens, stupid.

and why?

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

Man at B&Q wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Owain wrote
Davey wrote

Always get the impression that anything less than two centuries old
(in technology terms) is too modern. But that is very likely based on
much ignorance.

Not to mention the Fridge, the 'phone (in an outhouse!) and the solar
panels.

At least they don't need GPS - the horse always knows the way home.

Not to somewhere its never been it doesn't.

Somewhere it's never been wouldn't be home.

Irrelevant to his claim that they don't need GPS.

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 2:39 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Owain wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Owain wrote
At least they don't need GPS - the horse always knows the way home.
Not to somewhere its never been it doesn't.
I'll slightly qualify my original statement by saying
the horse always knows the way to its home.

Most don't use a GPS to get to their home.

I've yet to see *any* horse using a GPS for *anything*.

That's because you have wanked yourself completely blind, ****wit.

"The Nomad" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:51:20 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2012-08-03, F Murtz wrote:


Disables the light.

Weird. One would have thought that opening the dor was "work" and
therefore not allowed, so it doesn't matter if the light comes on. But
then, I am not Jewish.

Lighting a fire is forbidden, and turning a light on is considered byh
some to be equivalent to lighting a fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activit...ted_on_Shabbat

For more about what Jews may and may not do during Shabbat.

Just read that 'out of interest' and all I can say is _bizarre_

Whats even more bizarre is how the ban on lighting
fires is wanked over to a ban on turning a light on.

Sorry to offend any believers in sky fairies but ...

This *is* the 21st century you know :-)

Avpx

GB wrote
The Nomad wrote

Just read that 'out of interest' and all I can say is _bizarre_

Sorry to offend any believers in sky fairies but ...

This *is* the 21st century you know :-)

I think the UK is particularly irreligious by World standards.

Depends on how you measure that.

Probably well under 10% are actively religious,

Depends on how you measure that.

with the vast majority being nominally some sort of religion but actually
not participating in any way.

Its belief that matters.

Assuming you were brought up here, you may find it somewhat odd just how
many religious people there are around in the 21st century. Go to India,
and more or less everybody is religious. The USA - I don't know the
percentage, but I would guess that 50% are actively religious. And so on.

But thats a lousy measure of what they believe.

Of course, if you were religious, you would see nothing bizarre in trying
to interpret God's will (or Gods' wills for polytheists) and acting
accordingly.

Depends on the religion.

I cannot for the life of me see what is more bizarre about not switching
lights on than about taking communion, say, or using horse drawn buggies.

Your problem.

dennis@home wrote
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Huge wrote

There are a number of sub-sects of Amish. The ones you see on TV are
always the more moderate ones, since the "hard line" Amish, who eschew
most modern technology, will not allow themselves to be filmed.

And even the more relaxed of them have stupid rules on the colors
you can have your horse drawn things painted, and what color
braces etc you can wear. Completely off with the ****ing fairys.

But does it matter? Why not let them live their life as they choose.
They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

The evidence from the past indicates that religion does serious harm to
many.

If only because it fills their heads with stupid ****.

It isnt hard to see why some decided that its likely to work a lot
better to proclaim that some god or other doesn't want you to
eat pigs than to try explain why that can be not great for your
health in some circumstance, particularly with the illiterate.

Harder to see how anyone could have gotten away with
claiming that some damned god or other had just proclaimed
that everyone had to hack the ends off their kid's dicks on day
7 or whenever it is and everyone just clicked their heels and
whipped out the knives and started hacking away etc.

Just a tad hard to believe that if Billy Graham had
tried that line that it would have seen the same result.

Especially those the religious consider to be inferior due to them not
being a member of their superior religion.

News wrote
dennis@home wrote
News wrote

But does it matter? Why not let them live their life as they choose.
They're not doing the rest of us any harm.

The evidence from the past indicates that religion does serious harm to
many.

Oh indeed, I'm certainly not disputing that, but we're discussing what
many see as the 'strange' lives of, in this case, Amish and Jews. Strange
to us perhaps, but not doing us any harm,

But it clearly harms their kids to be brainwashed with that mindless silly
****.

Corse that's true of the roman catholics deliberately inculcating
guilt in their kids too.

so why the problem?

See above.

I remember the first time I visited Lancaster County, in the US, what
amazed and to a certain extent sickened me was not the Amish and how they
lived their lives, but the huge buses full of USAians paying good money to
drive around and gawp at these people.

You were doing that yourself.

To the average modern American, the Amish are today's freak show. The
modern equivalent of the dwarf, or bearded lady, or elephant man.

What's wrong with freaks earning money from fools that want to look at
freaks ?

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:40:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000 "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote
Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine if you've got legs.
A bicycle is almost the most efficient method of using human power
for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,
Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy than riding a bike over the
same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.
It is in fact much more complicated than that.
If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour, you
would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk it. With
the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you had managed to
walk there in that time, you would be ready for the hospital.
I am..frankly..flabbergasted.

10 miles is not a onerous walk on any surface a bike works.

Its about 4 hours thats all.

That seems pretty basic.

But he said "in an hour".



well by definition that is impossible.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:21:14 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:40:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000 "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote
Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine if you've got
legs. A bicycle is almost the most efficient method of using
human power for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,
Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy than riding a bike over
the same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.
It is in fact much more complicated than that.
If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour,
you would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk
it. With the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you
had managed to walk there in that time, you would be ready for
the hospital.
I am..frankly..flabbergasted.

10 miles is not a onerous walk on any surface a bike works.

Its about 4 hours thats all.

That seems pretty basic.

But he said "in an hour".



well by definition that is impossible.



Thank you for proving my point.
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:21:14 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:40:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:48:34 +1000 "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Owain wrote
wrote
Stuff as basic as a bike doesn't need an engine if you've got
legs. A bicycle is almost the most efficient method of using
human power for propulsion.

Rather less efficient than walking,
Fraid not. Walking does burn more energy than riding a bike over
the same distance.

as the weight of the bicycle also has to be propelled.
It is in fact much more complicated than that.
If you want to get from A to B, say 10 miles apart, in an hour,
you would be far better off riding a bicycle than trying to walk
it. With the bicycle, you would be ready to go to work, if you
had managed to walk there in that time, you would be ready for
the hospital.
I am..frankly..flabbergasted.

10 miles is not a onerous walk on any surface a bike works.

Its about 4 hours thats all.

That seems pretty basic.
But he said "in an hour".



well by definition that is impossible.



Thank you for proving my point.

Being impossible is not the same as being in a hospital

Actually it MIGHT be possible with stilts..

"1892 M. Garisoain of Bayonne France stilt walked "the last 4.97 miles
into Biarritz in 42 minutes (7.1 MPH)."




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of
course that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of a
26 mile run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very
average cyclist can complete the same distance in the same time without
raising a sweat. If nothing else is, that's an obvious indication of how
much more efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly flat even course.

On 04/08/2012 02:33, Rod Speed wrote:


Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

Do you feel that if you pull other people down then in some way it pulls
you up? I'm afraid that it doesn't really work that way.

GB wrote:

Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of
course that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of a
26 mile run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very
average cyclist can complete the same distance in the same time without
raising a sweat. If nothing else is, that's an obvious indication of how
much more efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly flat even course.


however you try cycling up Everest, or a cliff..

legs are general purpose transport that will do all terrain at about
3-10mph and are capable of vertical takeoff.

Bikes only do relatively smooth surfaces and low slope angles.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

GB wrote:
On 04/08/2012 02:33, Rod Speed wrote:


Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

Do you feel that if you pull other people down then in some way it pulls
you up? I'm afraid that it doesn't really work that way.


Mo., he is juts hoping that he isn't the stupidest clot on the NG, and
admittedly its a close call with dennis and harry in the running, with
Firth always in there to make a late dash for gold.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

GB wrote:
Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of course
that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of a 26 mile
run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very average cyclist
can complete the same distance in the same time without raising a sweat.
If nothing else is, that's an obvious indication of how much more
efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly flat even course.

That last bit is crucial of course. I've run past many cyclists when going
up hill or on rough ground.

Tim

In article , GB
scribeth thus

Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of
course that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of a
26 mile run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very
average cyclist can complete the same distance in the same time without
raising a sweat. If nothing else is, that's an obvious indication of how
much more efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly flat even course.


Is there anything in it that on a bike the body weight is supported
whereas with walking that load has to be taken by the legs an I presume
uses some energy doing that.

Also a train is carried on its wheels, whereas an aircraft has to
support its own weight all the time?..

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of
course that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of
a 26 mile run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very
average cyclist can complete the same distance in the same time
without raising a sweat. If nothing else is, that's an obvious
indication of how much more efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly
flat even course.


however you try cycling up Everest, or a cliff..

legs are general purpose transport that will do all terrain at about
3-10mph and are capable of vertical takeoff.

Bikes only do relatively smooth surfaces and low slope angles.

You make it sound like it's as easy to walk up a hill as on the level.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , GB
scribeth thus
Surely marathon runners do better than 10 mph? But the point is of
course that extremely fit marathon runners are exhausted at the end of a
26 mile run in a bit over 2 hours. On the other hand a very, very
average cyclist can complete the same distance in the same time without
raising a sweat. If nothing else is, that's an obvious indication of how
much more efficient bikes are than legs on a fairly flat even course.


Is there anything in it that on a bike the body weight is supported
whereas with walking that load has to be taken by the legs an I presume
uses some energy doing that.

No.

Also a train is carried on its wheels, whereas an aircraft has to
support its own weight all the time?..

None of this is relevant really. There is a slight issue with the
aircraft in that it has to 'make up' the glide slope loss (as it were)
all the time, but with glider slopes of 20: or better, its not a big
issue with respect to the forward speed.

For example a light aiorcraft [eaks out about 50-70W per pound of
weight, but amnalusis shows a good aerodynamic plane can saty up with
about 3-4W/lb - the rest goes in overcoming the drag.

Which is why airlines look pretty much like gliders - lowoest darg possible

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.