Serious reviews/discussion of Day Touring gear?

On Dec 20, 5:52 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:36:01 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of



OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
On Dec 19, 11:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:06 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
It's good to keep a running baseline. For instance, the new midlength
skis might will all glide and float with various abilities relative to
each other. I'll then want to know how those figures compare to the
best of full-length skis from a few years ago. See why old is
important?

It may be that ski building skill of awhile ago was more advanced than
it is today. Maybe highest quality isn't cost effective. Why was my
top of line touring ski lighter 17 years ago than the comparable ski
today? It was very strong and performed perfectly. Maybe the new
midlength skis have measurable benefits. Let's evaluate them...in
light of previous best art, as the innovators say.

They don't make em like they used to, the good old days, real
craftsmanship is dead, blah, blah blah.

I'm being specific. You're acting weird. I'm perfectly happy when
improvements come along: NNN is better than 75. Carbon poles are
better than bamboo.)

JFT: If you would post CIVILLY then RSN would be a better place.

If people would not say SILLY things like "performed perfectly" about
something and set that up as a reference to judge newer stuffl RSN
would be a better place.

Your obligation in posting is to advance the subject. If you can't add
to it, don't.

I have posted clearly about the features of the wonderful Fischer
Touring Light ski. I take it as my own baseline ski. Anyone else is
free to describe their own. They are NOT free to flame my descriptions
unless they're comfortable with violating netiquette. Why don't you
try to show that having a baseline optimal ski as a judge of newer
skis is a bad idea. You can't just say it's a bad idea. I've described
my "perfect" ski many times with plenty of detail. Others can describe
their own ideals. In terms of specifics I've mentioned that my old
skis had a lively double camber; they lasted 17 years of abuse and
that they were a lot lighter in weight than the new ski of same
dimension. I've posted exact weights in the past. I've tried to find
pro's and con's for double vs. single camber. I'd love to see glide
tests or head-to-head comparisons. Furthermore, subjective response is
legit. If midlength skis have their fans, let em gush. Some people
might just like a ski that turns more easily, others may prefer the
glide and flotation of full-length. It's surely best to include both
types in a comparison. The more types the better the comparison will
be.

I note that you've offered nothing on any level.

And you call my efforts to find quality daytouring equipment silly?
What a maroon. How much farther off base can you get?

If people would not say such subjective and BIZARRE things as black
clothes don't work RSN would be a better place.

Again, I was clearly commenting on the boring range of colors.
Subjective posts are totally fine. If someone can relate to them,
fine. If not, netiquette doesn't allow flames. A discussion of fashion
trends is fine. Your flames are not. They're bad form by definition---
look up netiquette.

--JP

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:50:19 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

I take it as my own baseline ski.

A baseline allows comarison, with the things being compared to it
perhaps better and perhaps worse.

If you have a ski you claim is perfect as your "baseline", then you've
got a bias and are not doing real reviews. You're saying that the
best anything else can be is the same and most things will be worse.
Is that what you mean? If so, no one should trust your reviews. And
if not, your language is sloppy.

Which is it?

Anyone else is
free to describe their own. They are NOT free to flame my descriptions
unless they're comfortable with violating netiquette.

If you say nonsense you can expect criticism. That's the beauty of
usenet. That's a good thing.

On Dec 22, 1:48 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:50:19 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I take it as my own baseline ski.

A baseline allows comarison, with the things being compared to it
perhaps better and perhaps worse.

If you have a ski you claim is perfect as your "baseline", then you've
got a bias and are not doing real reviews. You're saying that the
best anything else can be is the same and most things will be worse.
Is that what you mean? If so, no one should trust your reviews. And
if not, your language is sloppy.

All language is sloppy. No computer code is perfect.

My reviews contain plenty of reliable, helpful content.

Again, advance the subject or stay home.

My grammar is off limits to you. This is yet another aspect of
netiquette that you don't get. Your acceptable role in posting is to
advance the subject. Correcting spelling, grammar, "language" and such
is considered bad netiquette.

Put your own experience/info with touring skis, boots and gloves up
against mine as much as you like. That's what netiquette allows.

Which is it?

Anyone else is
free to describe their own. They are NOT free to flame my descriptions
unless they're comfortable with violating netiquette.

If you say nonsense you can expect criticism. That's the beauty of
usenet. That's a good thing.

I don't post nonsense. And you don't criticize. No one minds
criticism. You constantly are INSULTING in your posts. There's no
excuse.

--JP

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:29:23 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:48 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:50:19 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I take it as my own baseline ski.

A baseline allows comarison, with the things being compared to it
perhaps better and perhaps worse.

If you have a ski you claim is perfect as your "baseline", then you've
got a bias and are not doing real reviews. You're saying that the
best anything else can be is the same and most things will be worse.
Is that what you mean? If so, no one should trust your reviews. And
if not, your language is sloppy.

All language is sloppy. No computer code is perfect.

My reviews contain plenty of reliable, helpful content.

Again, advance the subject or stay home.

Jeff, you don't understand the nature of group communications:
pointing out when someone is wrong or mistaken is advancing the
subjects. It's stopping the flow of disinformation. That's a good
thing.

If you don't want criticism of what you post, then don't post in
public. Or if you just can't handle it, filter out my posts.


My grammar is off limits to you. This is yet another aspect of
netiquette that you don't get. Your acceptable role in posting is to
advance the subject. Correcting spelling, grammar, "language" and such
is considered bad netiquette.

I haven't said anything about grammar or spelling -- I'm talking about
the *meaning* of words, and about logic, which you don't have a firm
grasp of. You don't understand the meaning of baseline.

Please back off, JFT. Time to make the annual transition from those
nasty cycling newsgroups to the usually kinder and gentler rsn. One
of the great things about rsn is that people are allowed to say silly
and smart and all sorts of in-between things here, including you, and
get decent treatment until proven otherwise. Jeff has been contributing
to rsn for much longer than you, generating various sorts of discussions
of the past and present, some idiosyncratic (so what!), publishing
outdoor books other houses aren't interested in, and skiing awfully
well and fast for many years (when he's in shape and interested in
doing so). His taste in ski clothes may not be mine, but he is keeping
a tradition going - and does look good in them. ;-)

Roger M

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

If people would not say SILLY things like "performed perfectly" about
something and set that up as a reference to judge newer stuffl RSN
would be a better place.

If people would not say such subjective and BIZARRE things as black
clothes don't work RSN would be a better place.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:59:18 -0600, wrote:

Please back off, JFT. Time to make the annual transition from those
nasty cycling newsgroups to the usually kinder and gentler rsn. One
of the great things about rsn is that people are allowed to say silly
and smart and all sorts of in-between things here, including you, and
get decent treatment until proven otherwise.

I'll back off in this thread only because as I'm repeating myself and
Jeff doesn't get it

But I fundamentally disagree with you that pointing out silliness is
not decent. It's appropriate and I think we have a responsibility to
do so if we have time.

It's heartening to see that after several years here you remain just as
mean spirited and close minded as ever.

rm

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:59:18 -0600, wrote:

Please back off, JFT. Time to make the annual transition from those
nasty cycling newsgroups to the usually kinder and gentler rsn. One
of the great things about rsn is that people are allowed to say silly
and smart and all sorts of in-between things here, including you, and
get decent treatment until proven otherwise.

I'll back off in this thread only because as I'm repeating myself and
Jeff doesn't get it

But I fundamentally disagree with you that pointing out silliness is
not decent. It's appropriate and I think we have a responsibility to
do so if we have time.

On Dec 26, 6:26*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:59:18 -0600, wrote:
Please back off, JFT. *Time to make the annual transition from those
nasty cycling newsgroups to the usually kinder and gentler rsn.

Yeah, keeping RSN a functional newsgroup is the main reason why I
reject JFT's flames every time.

I'll do what I can to keep this newsgroup a place where people feel
welcome to contribute...and to question.


[ ] But I fundamentally disagree with you that pointing out
silliness is
not decent. *It's appropriate and I think we have a responsibility to
do so if we have time.

You can post to RSN if you use netiquette. Derision isn't tolerated.
Not by me anyway.

John, my "silliness" is not your concern. Obviously, it's totally
subjective.

In these threads, I've shown that you're both wrong about your
criticisms and that you're wrong in terms of netiquette.

These two things are separate.

I accept criticism.

I reject insult.

I pray for snow!

--JP

PS: Thanks, you guys, for backing me up. And, JFT, I have nothing
against your criticisms as long as you skip the insults. --JP

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:26:28 -0600, wrote:

It's heartening to see that after several years here you remain just as
mean spirited and close minded as ever.

You haven't seen mean. You're calling for fake niceness and I don't
play that.