Death, danger, patrol, life

[Wayne Decker]

Death and injuries are all too comon in our sports. They are all tragic.
Here in the Eastern Sierra, inspite of all the efforts of our wonderful and
IHO truly noble patrol and safty team--we have our share. . .

I've witnessed many. The 37 yr old who had never practiced in the park
attempting the last kicker on the "Parkasaurus" (which was supposed to be
closed to the public)who landed flat on his face on the ice and drove his
nose into his brain--in front of his famly. The kid who decided to use the
berm around tower 3 on Stump Alley and flew his board right into the back
of the neck of a skier standing, STANDING, IN FULL VIEW below him. My
collegue--who thought he could ski the trees--but was stopped abruptly by
one. The skier who thought she could ski the Gravy Shute, bounced off the
walls, then off that big outcrop at the bottom--ending upside down in the
snow below with a broken neck. The boarder who was found out of bounds who
had upended himself somehow into the powder--literally buried himself alive
upsidedown with just his board showing above the snow; he suffucated there.
The other one who was trapped for days in a bowl he couldn't get out of (out
of bounds again). He died of dehydreation. They know because they found his
feet--in his boots--and that's all. He was dead before he was eaten. The
weekend worrier who gave himself a heart attack while attempting the ski the
bumbs just to skier's right of chair 3--falling, sliding and stabbing
another skier with one of his poles (both perished). We had a death in
South Park just last weekend. I don't know the details yet.

I myself have been in the partol room twice--once because of my own
foolishness--I don't want you to think that I think I'm above all this. I
was showing off--that was 30 years ago. And once 3 weeks ago when a 17 year
old kid came out of the trees on his heel side without looking--and slammed
right into ME--blowing me right out of my skiis. HE dislocated his
shoulder--I had no serious injuries, ( I roll pretty well) but because of my
age they wanted to check me out anyway.

All too often though accidents are preventable-- if we all knew and
practiced the code.

And it is still hella-fun!
--
I ski, therefore I am

[ant]

"Wayne Decker" > wrote
(snip good stuff)
> All too often though accidents are preventable-- if we all knew and
> practiced the code.

Great post.

ant

[Wayne Decker]

Thanks

--
I ski, therefore I am
"ant" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Decker" > wrote
> (snip good stuff)
> > All too often though accidents are preventable-- if we all knew and
> > practiced the code.
>
> Great post.
>
> ant
>
>

[Dave Stallard]

Wayne Decker wrote:

> I've witnessed many. The 37 yr old who had never practiced in the park
> attempting the last kicker on the "Parkasaurus" (which was supposed to be
> closed to the public)who landed flat on his face on the ice and drove his
> nose into his brain--in front of his famly. The kid who decided to use the
> berm around tower 3 on Stump Alley and flew his board right into the back
> of the neck of a skier standing, STANDING, IN FULL VIEW below him. My
> collegue--who thought he could ski the trees--but was stopped abruptly by
> one. The skier who thought she could ski the Gravy Shute, bounced off the
> walls, then off that big outcrop at the bottom--ending upside down in the
> snow below with a broken neck. The boarder who was found out of bounds who
> had upended himself somehow into the powder--literally buried himself alive
> upsidedown with just his board showing above the snow; he suffucated there.
> The other one who was trapped for days in a bowl he couldn't get out of (out
> of bounds again). He died of dehydreation. They know because they found his
> feet--in his boots--and that's all. He was dead before he was eaten. The
> weekend worrier who gave himself a heart attack while attempting the ski the
> bumbs just to skier's right of chair 3--falling, sliding and stabbing
> another skier with one of his poles (both perished). We had a death in
> South Park just last weekend. I don't know the details yet.

Wayne,

Were all of the above fatalities? Including the snowboard in the
neck, etc? Was the snowboarder in question prosecuted?

Dave

[Black Metal Martha]

Wayne Decker wrote:

(snipped)

Wow, thanks for that list. Some of those definitely deserve a Darwin
Award nomination.

I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt, but
it's scary nontheless.

Martha

[yunlong]

Black Metal Martha wrote:
......
> I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt, but
> it's scary nontheless.

Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of deal;
ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
safely.

No fear, :)
IS

>
> Martha

[Black Metal Martha]

yunlong wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
> .....
> > I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt,
but
> > it's scary nontheless.
>
> Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of deal;
> ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
> safely.
>
> No fear, :)
> IS
Fear keeps me alive. I'm not talking about irrational fear. Realistic
combined with common sense it's kept me alive for 45 years. :)

Martha

[Walt]

Black Metal Martha wrote:

> Fear keeps me alive.

I know what you mean. Great band.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:cx6ibk596akv~T1

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[Black Metal Martha]

Walt wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
>
> > Fear keeps me alive.
>
> I know what you mean. Great band.
>
heh heh...They're one of the few punk rock bands I like.

Martha

[Walt]

Black Metal Martha wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>>Black Metal Martha wrote:
>>
>>>Fear keeps me alive.
>>
>>I know what you mean. Great band.
>
> heh heh...They're one of the few punk rock bands I like.

Sturgeons Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

Walt's Corollary: The other ten percent isn't so hot either.
Especially rock bands.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[Black Metal Martha]

Walt wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> >>Black Metal Martha wrote:
> >>
> >>>Fear keeps me alive.
> >>
> >>I know what you mean. Great band.
> >
> > heh heh...They're one of the few punk rock bands I like.
>
> Sturgeons Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
>
> Walt's Corollary: The other ten percent isn't so hot either.
> Especially rock bands.
>
You are so right. I've worked part time at rock concerts for 15 years.
I've seen them all. I would say I like around 5% of the bands. Most are
****.

Martha

[Walt]

Black Metal Martha wrote:
> Walt wrote:

>>Sturgeons Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
>>
>>Walt's Corollary: The other ten percent isn't so hot either.
>> Especially rock bands.
>>
>
> You are so right. I've worked part time at rock concerts for 15 years.
> I've seen them all. I would say I like around 5% of the bands. Most are
> ****.

Uh huh. I used to work in the business full time. It seemed like every
rock event had a lineup like

The Hoovers
The Shop Vacs
Negative Pressure
The Dirt Devils
Big Daddy Electrolux and the Attachments
The Vacuum Effect
Sluppee Straw
The Dust Busters
The Undertows
H Ross Perot and the Giant Sucking Sound

Maybe you've worked with these bands too?

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[rosco]

yunlong wrote:

> Black Metal Martha wrote:
> .....
>
>>I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt, but
>>it's scary nontheless.
>
>
> Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of deal;
> ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
> safely.
>
> No fear, :)
> IS


That is one of the most ignorant replies I have read in quite some time.
I equate that with saying it is okay to ignore traffic laws because
accidents are part of the deal and you must drive defensively or you
will be a victim.

Non-self-inflicted injury is NOT part of the deal. Defensive skiing is
a good idea but that does not give stupid, brain-dead thrill seekers
carte blanche to terrorize the common slopes.

If you haven't noticed, there is some seriously SCARY behavior going on
out there and the skier's code should be part of everyone's mantra. The
"thrill" should be the challenge of the hill, not with the ignorant
*******s that show no "common sense" by thinking they can control forces
of nature by wishing.

RAC

[ant]

"rosco" > wrote in message
...
>
> yunlong wrote:
>> Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of deal;
>> ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
>> safely.

> That is one of the most ignorant replies I have read in quite some time. I
> equate that with saying it is okay to ignore traffic laws because
> accidents are part of the deal and you must drive defensively or you will
> be a victim.
>
> Non-self-inflicted injury is NOT part of the deal. Defensive skiing is a
> good idea but that does not give stupid, brain-dead thrill seekers carte
> blanche to terrorize the common slopes.
>
> If you haven't noticed, there is some seriously SCARY behavior going on
> out there and the skier's code should be part of everyone's mantra. The
> "thrill" should be the challenge of the hill, not with the ignorant
> *******s that show no "common sense" by thinking they can control forces
> of nature by wishing.

Hear hear. I wish a few more people would speak up about this, before this
aggressive, dangerous snow riding becomes accepted as "the norm" at resorts.

ant

[yunlong]

rosco wrote:
> yunlong wrote:
>
> > Black Metal Martha wrote:
> > .....
> >
> >>I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt,
but
> >>it's scary nontheless.
> >
> >
> > Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of
deal;
> > ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
> > safely.
> >
> > No fear, :)
> > IS
>
>
> That is one of the most ignorant replies I have read in quite some
time.

Why? Because your ignorant "equate"?

> I equate that with saying it is okay to ignore traffic laws because

> accidents are part of the deal and you must drive defensively or you
> will be a victim.

"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding collision,
you think?

>
> Non-self-inflicted injury is NOT part of the deal. Defensive skiing
is
> a good idea but that does not give stupid, brain-dead thrill seekers
> carte blanche to terrorize the common slopes.

guess you don't know how to "equate."

:)
IS

>
> If you haven't noticed, there is some seriously SCARY behavior going
on
> out there and the skier's code should be part of everyone's mantra.
The
> "thrill" should be the challenge of the hill, not with the ignorant
> *******s that show no "common sense" by thinking they can control
forces
> of nature by wishing.
>
> RAC

[Dave M]

yunlong wrote:

>rosco wrote:
>
>
>>yunlong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Black Metal Martha wrote:
>>>.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt,
>>>>
>>>>
>but
>
>
>>>>it's scary nontheless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of
>>>
>>>
>deal;
>
>
>>>ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
>>>safely.
>>>
>>>No fear, :)
>>>IS
>>>
>>>
>>That is one of the most ignorant replies I have read in quite some
>>
>>
>time.
>
>Why? Because your ignorant "equate"?
>

Yes, I am sure that my ignorant does not equate. Thank you.

>
>
>
>> I equate that with saying it is okay to ignore traffic laws because
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>accidents are part of the deal and you must drive defensively or you
>>will be a victim.
>>
>>
>
>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
>kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding collision,
>you think?
>

Responsibility code? Maybe or ... yield to the right... or if you are
a out of control dumbass, you should be prosecuted for slamming into
some poor unsuspecting skier who is minding her own business .., unless
youa re flatboarding in which case you are held blameless ... be the ski
.... Grashopper..... be the ski.

>
>
>
>>Non-self-inflicted injury is NOT part of the deal. Defensive skiing
>>
>>
>is
>
>
>>a good idea but that does not give stupid, brain-dead thrill seekers
>>carte blanche to terrorize the common slopes.
>>
>>
>
>guess you don't know how to "equate."
>
>:)
>ISO
>

OH... OK ... more drivel to come????


>
>
>
>>If you haven't noticed, there is some seriously SCARY behavior going
>>
>>
>on
>
>
>>out there and the skier's code should be part of everyone's mantra.
>>
>>
>The
>
>
>>"thrill" should be the challenge of the hill, not with the ignorant
>>*******s that show no "common sense" by thinking they can control
>>
>>
>forces of nature by wishing.
>
>RAC
>
>

Yeah, that made sense. Must not be the same poster :)

Dave M.

[rosco]

<snip ignorant reply>
>
> "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
> kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding collision,
> you think?
>
>

Yunlong, here is the skier's code:

Always stay in control. You must be able to stop, or avoid other
people or objects.
People ahead of you have the right-of-way. It is your responsibility to
avoid them.
Do not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from above.
Before starting downhill or merging onto a trail, look uphill and yield
to others.
If you are involved in or witness a collision or accident, you must
remain at the scene and identify yourself to the Ski Patrol.
Always use proper devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
Observe and obey all posted signs and warnings.
Keep off closed trails and closed areas.
You must not use lifts or terrain if your ability is impaired through
use of alcohol or drugs.
You must have sufficient physical dexterity, ability and knowledge to
safely load, ride and unload lifts. If in doubt, ask the lift attendant.

These are the traffic laws of ski resorts. If you violate them, you are
subjecting yourself to criminal prosecution. No joke:

http://www.ago.state.co.us/PRESREL/presrl00/prsrl91.stm

This is Colorado specific, but precedent has already been set. Should I
explain that further? I know I used big words, but if you ask your dad,
maybe he will help you with it.

BTW equate *is* in any adult-sized English dictionary you ignorant twit.
Here is another sample sentence: I equate your apparent intelligence
to that of a drowned rat. How about that? And I didn't even use
spellcheck!

RAC

[yunlong]

rosco wrote:
> <snip ignorant reply>
> >
> > "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
> > kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding
collision,
> > you think?
> >
> >
>
> Yunlong, here is the skier's code:
>
> Always stay in control. You must be able to stop, or avoid other
> people or objects.
> People ahead of you have the right-of-way. It is your responsibility
to
> avoid them.
> Do not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from
above.
> Before starting downhill or merging onto a trail, look uphill and
yield
> to others.
> If you are involved in or witness a collision or accident, you must
> remain at the scene and identify yourself to the Ski Patrol.
> Always use proper devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
> Observe and obey all posted signs and warnings.
> Keep off closed trails and closed areas.
> You must not use lifts or terrain if your ability is impaired
through
> use of alcohol or drugs.
> You must have sufficient physical dexterity, ability and knowledge
to
> safely load, ride and unload lifts. If in doubt, ask the lift
attendant.
>
> These are the traffic laws of ski resorts.

A law without a specify standard cannot be enforced, thus invalid.

> If you violate them, you are
> subjecting yourself to criminal prosecution. No joke:
>
> http://www.ago.state.co.us/PRESREL/presrl00/prsrl91.stm
>
> This is Colorado specific, but precedent has already been set.
Should I
> explain that further? I know I used big words, but if you ask your
dad,
> maybe he will help you with it.

In California, we do distinct the difference between "codes" and
"laws."

>
> BTW equate *is* in any adult-sized English dictionary you ignorant
twit.
> Here is another sample sentence: I equate your apparent
intelligence

"ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
safely" was my statement, where did you get yours?

> to that of a drowned rat. How about that? And I didn't even use
> spellcheck!

Fancy, it sure reflects a drowned rat's self-righteous.
:)
IS

>
> RAC

[Mary Malmros]

yunlong wrote:

> "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
> kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding collision,
> you think?

Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these "laws"
are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc. Most, if
not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that sliders
must comply with this code as a condition for using the area. It's
usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd be hard-pressed
to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[yunlong]

Mary Malmros wrote:
> yunlong wrote:
>
> > "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
> > kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding
collision,
> > you think?
>
> Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
"laws"
> are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc. Most,
if
> not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that sliders

> must comply with this code as a condition for using the area. It's
> usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd be
hard-pressed
> to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
> experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.

So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?

In California we do distinguish them. When you get hurt in a skiing
accident, you may file civil sue to seek compensation (on your own),
but it is not a prosecutable criminal offense (by the state).

:)
IS

>
> --
> Mary Malmros
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Wayne Decker]

Here in the Eastern Sierra you will loose your ticket/pass if it is
determined that you are willfully reckless. You can be banned from the
resort. ( An acquaintence of mine curently has constraining orders against
him for both mountains--and all of its properties). I also understand the
Mountain itself will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law for any
negligence which results in the injury or death of either an employee or a
guest--if you are at fault, regardless of whether you are an emplyee or a
guest yourself. Further, leaving the scene of an accent you are involved in
until you are released by patrol is a FELLONY. It is fellony
hit-and-run--the same as with a vehicle.

Know, and practice the code!!!

--
I ski, therefore I am
"yunlong" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mary Malmros wrote:
> > yunlong wrote:
> >
> > > "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
> > > kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding
> collision,
> > > you think?
> >
> > Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> > simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
> "laws"
> > are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> > http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc. Most,
> if
> > not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that sliders
>
> > must comply with this code as a condition for using the area. It's
> > usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd be
> hard-pressed
> > to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
> > experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.
>
> So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
>
> In California we do distinguish them. When you get hurt in a skiing
> accident, you may file civil sue to seek compensation (on your own),
> but it is not a prosecutable criminal offense (by the state).
>
> :)
> IS
>
> >
> > --
> > Mary Malmros
> > Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
>

[Mary Malmros]

yunlong wrote:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>>yunlong wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
>>>kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding
>
> collision,
>
>>>you think?
>>
>>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
>>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
>
> "laws"
>
>>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
>>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc. Most,
>
> if
>
>>not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that sliders
>
>
>>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area. It's
>>usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd be
>
> hard-pressed
>
>>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
>>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.
>
>
> So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?

Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.

I'll take your advice about the law right about the same time I start
taking your advice about skiing.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[yunlong]

Wayne Decker wrote:
> Here in the Eastern Sierra you will loose your ticket/pass if it is
> determined that you are willfully reckless.

What constitutes the "reckless" is the argument, and "who" is going to
determine that and by "what" standard are the next questions.

> You can be banned from the
> resort. ( An acquaintence of mine curently has constraining orders
against
> him for both mountains--and all of its properties).

And that involves only civil sue, you may sue them as well.

> I also understand the
> Mountain itself will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law
for any
> negligence which results in the injury or death of either an
employee or a
> guest--if you are at fault, regardless of whether you are an emplyee
or a
> guest yourself.

The mountain cannot prosecute you anything, only the state may
prosecute you for wrongful injury or death;

> Further, leaving the scene of an accent you are involved in
> until you are released by patrol is a FELLONY. It is fellony
> hit-and-run--the same as with a vehicle.

which is patterned/prosecuted under normal vehicle traffic laws, but
NOT the "ski traffic laws."

>
> Know, and practice the code!!!

Know the laws, and know your right.

:)
IS

>
> --
> I ski, therefore I am
> "yunlong" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Mary Malmros wrote:
> > > yunlong wrote:
> > >
> > > > "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and
what
> > > > kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding
> > collision,
> > > > you think?
> > >
> > > Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> > > simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
> > "laws"
> > > are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> > > http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
Most,
> > if
> > > not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that
sliders
> >
> > > must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
It's
> > > usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd be
> > hard-pressed
> > > to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
> > > experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of
it.
> >
> > So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
> >
> > In California we do distinguish them. When you get hurt in a skiing
> > accident, you may file civil sue to seek compensation (on your
own),
> > but it is not a prosecutable criminal offense (by the state).
> >
> > :)
> > IS
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mary Malmros
> > > Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
> >

[yunlong]

Mary Malmros wrote:
> yunlong wrote:
> > Mary Malmros wrote:
> >
> >>yunlong wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and
what
> >>>kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of
> >>> avoiding collision, you think?
> >>
> >>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> >>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
"laws"
> >>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> >>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
Most,
> >> if not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that
sliders
> >>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
> >>It's usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd
> >>be hard-pressed
> >>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
> >>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.
> >
> > So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
>
> Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.

Supporting arguments? Or you just saying "I do" and pretend it is true?

>
> I'll take your advice about the law right about the same time
> I start taking your advice about skiing.

Flat-boarding? Not sure if you can handle it.

:)
IS

>
> --
> Mary Malmros
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Richard Henry]

"yunlong" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wayne Decker wrote:
> > Here in the Eastern Sierra you will loose your ticket/pass if it is
> > determined that you are willfully reckless.
>
> What constitutes the "reckless" is the argument, and "who" is going to
> determine that and by "what" standard are the next questions.
>
> > You can be banned from the
> > resort. ( An acquaintence of mine curently has constraining orders
> against
> > him for both mountains--and all of its properties).
>
> And that involves only civil sue, you may sue them as well.
>
> > I also understand the
> > Mountain itself will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law
> for any
> > negligence which results in the injury or death of either an
> employee or a
> > guest--if you are at fault, regardless of whether you are an emplyee
> or a
> > guest yourself.
>
> The mountain cannot prosecute you anything, only the state may
> prosecute you for wrongful injury or death;

Are you also a lawyer?

I am not, but I know that a mountain (or, more formally, the mountain resort
operating company) can revoke your ticket or season pass and sue you in
civil court for any damage they, their employees, or their other customers,
suffer.

> > Further, leaving the scene of an accent you are involved in
> > until you are released by patrol is a FELLONY. It is fellony
> > hit-and-run--the same as with a vehicle.
>
> which is patterned/prosecuted under normal vehicle traffic laws, but
> NOT the "ski traffic laws."

At least in Vermont, Californai, and Colorado, there are specific "ski
traffic laws" on the books.

[Mary Malmros]

yunlong wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>>yunlong wrote:
>>
>>>Mary Malmros wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>yunlong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and
>
> what
>
>>>>>kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of
>>>>>avoiding collision, you think?
>>>>
>>>>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
>>>>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
>
> "laws"
>
>>>>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
>>>>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
>
> Most,
>
>>>>if not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that
>
> sliders
>
>>>>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
>>>>It's usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd
>>>>be hard-pressed
>>>>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
>>>>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of it.
>>>
>>>So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
>>
>>Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.
>
>
> Supporting arguments? Or you just saying "I do" and pretend it is true?

You're off in left field, chummy. The terms "code" and "law" are often
used synonymously; or, to be more exact, in the legal context, "code"
generally refers to a body of laws that have some relation to one
another (as in the phrase "New York Drug Code"). Both words also have
meaning outside the legal context: for example, the law of gravity or
the Repo Code.

You seem to be confused on two points. First, you're apparently under
the misapprehension that a "law" is a piece of legislation which, if
violated, can lead to criminal prosecution, while a "code" is a piece of
legislation which, if violated, can lead to a civil suit. This is
incorrect. To provide a single counterexample, Kobe Bryant was charged
with violating a law against sexual assault. The state of Colorado
brought a crimninal case against him. The case was subsequently
dropped, and the alleged victim is now pursuing a _civil_ suit for the
same violation of the same law.

The second point on which you appear to be confused has to do with the
phrase "responsibility code". The responsibility code as such is not a
legal statute of any kind; instead, it is a "code" in the sense of the
Repo Code, a set of conventions agreed upon by participants. It does
not have the force of law as such; however, you would be very much
mistaken to assume that therefore, someone who acts in violation of the
Responsibility Code cannot be liable for criminal prosecution (as in the
Colorado case of People v. Hall, in which the defendant was prosecuted
and eventually convicted of criminally negligent homicide).

>>I'll take your advice about the law right about the same time
>>I start taking your advice about skiing.
>
>
> Flat-boarding? Not sure if you can handle it.

The snow has been really sucking here, but I'm also not sure I could
handle what happened to Astro after he followed your dumbass advice.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[The Real Bev]

Richard Henry wrote:
>
> "yunlong" > wrote:
> > Wayne Decker wrote:
> > > Here in the Eastern Sierra you will loose your ticket/pass if it is
> > > determined that you are willfully reckless.
> >
> > What constitutes the "reckless" is the argument, and "who" is going to
> > determine that and by "what" standard are the next questions.
> >
> > > You can be banned from the
> > > resort. ( An acquaintence of mine curently has constraining orders
> > > against him for both mountains--and all of its properties).
> >
> > And that involves only civil sue, you may sue them as well.
> >
> > > I also understand the
> > > Mountain itself will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law
> > for any
> > > negligence which results in the injury or death of either an
> > employee or a
> > > guest--if you are at fault, regardless of whether you are an emplyee
> > or a
> > > guest yourself.
> >
> > The mountain cannot prosecute you anything, only the state may
> > prosecute you for wrongful injury or death;
>
> Are you also a lawyer?
>
> I am not, but I know that a mountain (or, more formally, the mountain resort
> operating company) can revoke your ticket or season pass and sue you in
> civil court for any damage they, their employees, or their other customers,
> suffer.
>
> > > Further, leaving the scene of an accent you are involved in
> > > until you are released by patrol is a FELLONY. It is fellony
> > > hit-and-run--the same as with a vehicle.
> >
> > which is patterned/prosecuted under normal vehicle traffic laws, but
> > NOT the "ski traffic laws."
>
> At least in Vermont, Californai, and Colorado, there are specific "ski
> traffic laws" on the books.

It's also possible to get parking (especially gimpspot violations) and
speeding tickets in private parking lots. Perhaps it would be a good
idea to ask "Do you prosecute?" when buying a lift ticket.

--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster."
-- Greg Lemond

[yunlong]

Mary Malmros wrote:
> yunlong wrote:
>
> > Mary Malmros wrote:
> >>yunlong wrote:
> >>>Mary Malmros wrote:
> >>>>yunlong wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic
> >>>>>laws," and what kind of "traffic laws" should skiing
> >>>>>have, short of avoiding collision, you think?
> >>>>
> >>>>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> >>>>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
> >
> > "laws"
> >
> >>>>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> >>>>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
> >
> > Most,
> >
> >>>>if not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that
> >
> > sliders
> >
> >>>>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
> >>>>It's usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd
> >>>>be hard-pressed
> >>>>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
> >>>>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of
it.
> >>>
> >>>So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
> >>
> >>Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.
> >
> > Supporting arguments? Or you just saying "I do" and pretend it is
true?
>
> You're off in left field, chummy. The terms "code" and "law" are
often
> used synonymously; or, to be more exact, in the legal context, "code"

> generally refers to a body of laws that have some relation to one
> another (as in the phrase "New York Drug Code"). Both words also
have
> meaning outside the legal context: for example, the law of gravity or

> the Repo Code.
>
> You seem to be confused on two points. First, you're apparently
under
> the misapprehension that a "law" is a piece of legislation which, if
> violated, can lead to criminal prosecution, while a "code" is a piece
of
> legislation which, if violated, can lead to a civil suit. This is
> incorrect. To provide a single counterexample, Kobe Bryant was
charged
> with violating a law against sexual assault. The state of Colorado
> brought a crimninal case against him. The case was subsequently
> dropped, and the alleged victim is now pursuing a _civil_ suit for
the
> same violation of the same law.
>
> The second point on which you appear to be confused has to do with
the
> phrase "responsibility code". The responsibility code as such is not
a
> legal statute of any kind; instead, it is a "code" in the sense of
the
> Repo Code, a set of conventions agreed upon by participants. It does

> not have the force of law as such; however, you would be very much
> mistaken to assume that therefore, someone who acts in violation of
the
> Responsibility Code cannot be liable for criminal prosecution (as in
the
> Colorado case of People v. Hall, in which the defendant was
prosecuted
> and eventually convicted of criminally negligent homicide).

Thanks for the redirection, the question was not the "general"
difference of "code" and "law," but specifically about skier's
responsibility "codes" vs. ski traffic "laws."

>
> >>I'll take your advice about the law right about the same time
> >>I start taking your advice about skiing.
> >
> >
> > Flat-boarding? Not sure if you can handle it.
>
> The snow has been really sucking here, but I'm also not sure I could
> handle what happened to Astro after he followed your dumbass advice.

Thanks for NOT to participate in my threads and discussions, then.

:)
IS

>
> --
> Mary Malmros
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Sue White]

In message >, The Real Bev
> writes
>
>It's also possible to get parking (especially gimpspot violations) and
>speeding tickets in private parking lots. Perhaps it would be a good
>idea to ask "Do you prosecute?" when buying a lift ticket.
>

Ask it furtively, and make sure you have your base-jumping equipment (or
at least a shotgun) and assorted cameras on you at the time.

--
Sue ]3(:)

At the last annual count, Britain had 544 breweries and rising.

[Sue White]

In message >, Mary Malmros
> writes
>
>The snow has been really sucking here, but I'm also not sure I could
>handle what happened to Astro after he followed your dumbass advice.
>

That gives the impression that you blame yunlong for Astro's broken arm.

I expect you'd agree that Astro's a big boy who knows what he's doing,
and if he chooses to try that at home, it's his own fault if he crashes.

I won't be trying it because I couldn't understand it!

--
Sue ]3(:)

Aum nama Shiva Nataraja - snow please! Pretty please?

[Richard Henry]

"yunlong" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Thanks for NOT to participate in my threads and discussions, then.

This is Usenet. No one owns any threads. Learn to live with it.

[Mary Malmros]

yunlong wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>>yunlong wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mary Malmros wrote:
>>>
>>>>yunlong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mary Malmros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>yunlong wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic
>>>>>>>laws," and what kind of "traffic laws" should skiing
>>>>>>>have, short of avoiding collision, you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
>>>>>>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these
>>>
>>>"laws"
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
>>>>>>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
>>>
>>>Most,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>if not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state that
>>>
>>>sliders
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
>>>>>>It's usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd
>>>>>>be hard-pressed
>>>>>>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that an
>>>>>>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of
>
> it.
>
>>>>>So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
>>>>
>>>>Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.
>>>
>>>Supporting arguments? Or you just saying "I do" and pretend it is
>
> true?
>
>>You're off in left field, chummy. The terms "code" and "law" are
>
> often
>
>>used synonymously; or, to be more exact, in the legal context, "code"
>
>
>>generally refers to a body of laws that have some relation to one
>>another (as in the phrase "New York Drug Code"). Both words also
>
> have
>
>>meaning outside the legal context: for example, the law of gravity or
>
>
>>the Repo Code.
>>
>>You seem to be confused on two points. First, you're apparently
>
> under
>
>>the misapprehension that a "law" is a piece of legislation which, if
>>violated, can lead to criminal prosecution, while a "code" is a piece
>
> of
>
>>legislation which, if violated, can lead to a civil suit. This is
>>incorrect. To provide a single counterexample, Kobe Bryant was
>
> charged
>
>>with violating a law against sexual assault. The state of Colorado
>>brought a crimninal case against him. The case was subsequently
>>dropped, and the alleged victim is now pursuing a _civil_ suit for
>
> the
>
>>same violation of the same law.
>>
>>The second point on which you appear to be confused has to do with
>
> the
>
>>phrase "responsibility code". The responsibility code as such is not
>
> a
>
>>legal statute of any kind; instead, it is a "code" in the sense of
>
> the
>
>>Repo Code, a set of conventions agreed upon by participants. It does
>
>
>>not have the force of law as such; however, you would be very much
>>mistaken to assume that therefore, someone who acts in violation of
>
> the
>
>>Responsibility Code cannot be liable for criminal prosecution (as in
>
> the
>
>>Colorado case of People v. Hall, in which the defendant was
>
> prosecuted
>
>>and eventually convicted of criminally negligent homicide).
>
>
> Thanks for the redirection, the question was not the "general"
> difference of "code" and "law," but specifically about skier's
> responsibility "codes" vs. ski traffic "laws."

No, it wasn't. It was, verbatim: "So you don't know the difference
between 'codes' and 'laws'?" Those were your words, not "skier's
responsibility 'codes' vs. ski traffic 'laws'". Would you like to try
again?

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Mary Malmros]

Sue White wrote:

> In message >, Mary Malmros
> > writes
>
>>
>> The snow has been really sucking here, but I'm also not sure I could
>> handle what happened to Astro after he followed your dumbass advice.
>>
>
> That gives the impression that you blame yunlong for Astro's broken arm.

I'm sorry, next time I'll add the emoticon for you.

> I expect you'd agree that Astro's a big boy who knows what he's doing,
> and if he chooses to try that at home, it's his own fault if he crashes.
>
> I won't be trying it because I couldn't understand it!

I understand it just fine. I just think it's dumb. Did you LOOK at
those videos? Sheesh.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Mary Malmros]

AstroPax wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:04:01 +0000, Sue White >
> wrote:
>
>
>>That gives the impression that you blame yunlong for Astro's broken arm.
>
>
> 4 weeks later...and it's no longer broken, as far as I can tell.
>
> I mean really, I can do 12 oz. curls with it, so it must be healed,
> right?

That's a rehab weight. Let us know when you're up to pints.

I mean 16 oz.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[LePheaux]

"AstroPax" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Jan 2005 07:02:46 -0800, "yunlong"
> > wrote:
>
>>Know the laws, and know your right.
>
> Interesting discussion.
>
> Reference "Salt Lake County Code Of Ordinances"
>
> Chapter 13.12 SKIING AND SKI RESORTS
>
> FYI, applicable at Alta, Snowbird, Brighton, and Solitude:
>
> http://ordlink.com/codes/saltlkco/_DATA/TITLE13/Chapter_13_12_SKIING_AND_SKI_RESOR/index.html
>
> BTW, as indicated in the above referenced document "13.12.050
> Violation--Penalty", if you "Hit and Run" on the slopes (in Salt Lake
> County) you are guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, not a felony.
>
> And...
>
> Utah State Code - Inherent Risks of Skiing:
>
> http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE78/htm/78_23042.htm
>
> http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE78/htm/78_23043.htm
>
> http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE78/htm/78_23044.htm
>
> http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE78/htm/78_23045.htm
>
> -Astro
><<>>>

I'm feel for ya Astro.
you definitely have too much time on your hands.
so what happend to taking some pix during the heal time.
I'm thinking there could be some serious sympathy vote out on the slope <EG>

[LePheaux]

"Mary Malmros" > wrote in message

>> Mary Malmros wrote:
>>
>>>yunlong wrote:
<<>>
Snippage happens .

[Sue White]

In message >, AstroPax
> writes
>On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:04:01 +0000, Sue White >
>wrote:
>
>>That gives the impression that you blame yunlong for Astro's broken arm.
>
>4 weeks later...and it's no longer broken, as far as I can tell.
>
>I mean really, I can do 12 oz. curls with it, so it must be healed,
>right?
>

And you're fit, or it would've taken longer.

Happy skiing!
--
Sue ]3(:)

At the last annual count, Britain had 544 breweries and rising.

[A. B. Normal]

Walt wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
>
>> Walt wrote:
>
>
>>> Sturgeons Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
>>>
>>> Walt's Corollary: The other ten percent isn't so hot either.
>>> Especially rock bands.
>>>
>>
>> You are so right. I've worked part time at rock concerts for 15 years.
>> I've seen them all. I would say I like around 5% of the bands. Most are
>> ****.
>
>
> Uh huh. I used to work in the business full time. It seemed like every
> rock event had a lineup like
>
> The Hoovers
> The Shop Vacs
> Negative Pressure
> The Dirt Devils
> Big Daddy Electrolux and the Attachments
> The Vacuum Effect
> Sluppee Straw
> The Dust Busters
> The Undertows
> H Ross Perot and the Giant Sucking Sound
>
> Maybe you've worked with these bands too?
>

You forgot the Monica Lewinskys.

[tiandiren]

Mary Malmros wrote:
> Sue White wrote:
>
> > In message >, Mary Malmros
> > > writes
> >
> >>
> >> The snow has been really sucking here, but I'm also not sure I
could
> >> handle what happened to Astro after he followed your dumbass
advice.
> >>
> >
> > That gives the impression that you blame yunlong for Astro's broken
arm.
>
> I'm sorry, next time I'll add the emoticon for you.
>
> > I expect you'd agree that Astro's a big boy who knows what he's
doing,
> > and if he chooses to try that at home, it's his own fault if he
crashes.
> >
> > I won't be trying it because I couldn't understand it!
>
> I understand it just fine. I just think it's dumb. Did you LOOK at
> those videos? Sheesh.

Those without substance cannot be impressed.

sting

>
> --
> Mary Malmros
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[tiandiren]

Mary Malmros wrote:
> yunlong wrote:
>
> > Mary Malmros wrote:
> >
> >>yunlong wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mary Malmros wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>yunlong wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Mary Malmros wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>yunlong wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic
> >>>>>>>laws," and what kind of "traffic laws" should skiing
> >>>>>>>have, short of avoiding collision, you think?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> >>>>>>simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States,
these
> >>>
> >>>"laws"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>are expressed as the responsibility code, which can be found at
> >>>>>>http://www.nsp.org/nsp2002/safety_info_template.asp?mode=yrc.
> >>>
> >>>Most,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>if not all, ski areas in the United States explicitly state
that
> >>>
> >>>sliders
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>must comply with this code as a condition for using the area.
> >>>>>>It's usually posted prominently and in such ways that you'd
> >>>>>>be hard-pressed
> >>>>>>to claim non-wilfull ignorance; therefore, I'm surprised that
an
> >>>>>>experienced slider such as yourself doesn't seem to be aware of
> >
> > it.
> >
> >>>>>So you don't know the difference between "codes" and "laws"?
> >>>>
> >>>>Um...I do...but I think you just demonstrated that you don't.
> >>>
> >>>Supporting arguments? Or you just saying "I do" and pretend it is
> >
> > true?
> >
> >>You're off in left field, chummy. The terms "code" and "law" are
> >
> > often
> >
> >>used synonymously; or, to be more exact, in the legal context,
"code"
> >
> >
> >>generally refers to a body of laws that have some relation to one
> >>another (as in the phrase "New York Drug Code"). Both words also
> >
> > have
> >
> >>meaning outside the legal context: for example, the law of gravity
or
> >
> >
> >>the Repo Code.
> >>
> >>You seem to be confused on two points. First, you're apparently
> >
> > under
> >
> >>the misapprehension that a "law" is a piece of legislation which,
if
> >>violated, can lead to criminal prosecution, while a "code" is a
piece
> >
> > of
> >
> >>legislation which, if violated, can lead to a civil suit. This is
> >>incorrect. To provide a single counterexample, Kobe Bryant was
> >
> > charged
> >
> >>with violating a law against sexual assault. The state of Colorado
> >>brought a crimninal case against him. The case was subsequently
> >>dropped, and the alleged victim is now pursuing a _civil_ suit for
> >
> > the
> >
> >>same violation of the same law.
> >>
> >>The second point on which you appear to be confused has to do with
> >
> > the
> >
> >>phrase "responsibility code". The responsibility code as such is
not
> >
> > a
> >
> >>legal statute of any kind; instead, it is a "code" in the sense of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>Repo Code, a set of conventions agreed upon by participants. It
does
> >
> >
> >>not have the force of law as such; however, you would be very much
> >>mistaken to assume that therefore, someone who acts in violation of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>Responsibility Code cannot be liable for criminal prosecution (as
in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>Colorado case of People v. Hall, in which the defendant was
> >
> > prosecuted
> >
> >>and eventually convicted of criminally negligent homicide).
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the redirection, the question was not the "general"
> > difference of "code" and "law," but specifically about skier's
> > responsibility "codes" vs. ski traffic "laws."
>
> No, it wasn't. It was, verbatim: "So you don't know the difference
> between 'codes' and 'laws'?" Those were your words, not "skier's
> responsibility 'codes' vs. ski traffic 'laws'". Would you like to
try
> again?

Can't help you if you don't know how to follow a thread.

sting

>
> --
> Mary Malmros
> Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Norm]

"AstroPax" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
>
>>I can do 12 oz. curls
>
> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>
> I feel ripped-off, damned Canuck's
>

Sorry, its the metric thing. We blame the Europeans, they did it first.
OTOH, I'd hazard a guess you paid less for it than we do here.

http://www.bcliquorstores.com/en/products/900035

$17.95Can=$14.70US.

[Mary Malmros]

AstroPax wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
>
>
>>I can do 12 oz. curls
>
>
> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.

Maybe it's a metric thing.

I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[LePheaux]

"tiandiren" > wrote in message
>
> Can't help you if you don't know how to follow a thread.
>
<<>>
Ya Know.
Snippage goes along way when following a thread.
but since you know how to follow a thread you already know that <?>

[LePheaux]

"Norm" > wrote in message
news:jMGEd.46361$6l.36511@pd7tw2no...
>
> "AstroPax" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
>>
>>>I can do 12 oz. curls
>>
>> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>>
>> I feel ripped-off, damned Canuck's
>>
>
> Sorry, its the metric thing. We blame the Europeans, they did it first.
> OTOH, I'd hazard a guess you paid less for it than we do here.
>
<<>>
The becks I'm drinking here is a full 12 oz.

[Black Metal Martha]

Walt wrote:
> Black Metal Martha wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
>
> >>Sturgeons Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
> >>
> >>Walt's Corollary: The other ten percent isn't so hot either.
> >> Especially rock bands.
> >>
> >
> > You are so right. I've worked part time at rock concerts for 15
years.
> > I've seen them all. I would say I like around 5% of the bands. Most
are
> > ****.
>
> Uh huh. I used to work in the business full time. It seemed like
every
> rock event had a lineup like
>
> The Hoovers
> The Shop Vacs
> Negative Pressure
> The Dirt Devils
> Big Daddy Electrolux and the Attachments
> The Vacuum Effect
> Sluppee Straw
> The Dust Busters
> The Undertows
> H Ross Perot and the Giant Sucking Sound
>
> Maybe you've worked with these bands too?
>

That's too funny. What I like about working at shows is crowd watching.
Sometimes it's quite amusing.

Martha

[Harry Weiner]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
> wrote this crap:

>> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>
>Maybe it's a metric thing.
>
>I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?


He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
of the high alcohol content.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[ant]

"LePheaux" > wrote in message
news:kJ6dnVLiqLse3H7cRVn-

> The becks I'm drinking here is a full 12 oz.

Is that those rotten little 330ml bottles? Weedy things. Luckily the beer in
them is good.

ant

[Richard Henry]

"LePheaux" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Norm" > wrote in message
> news:jMGEd.46361$6l.36511@pd7tw2no...
> >
> > "AstroPax" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
> >>
> >>>I can do 12 oz. curls
> >>
> >> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
> >> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
> >>
> >> I feel ripped-off, damned Canuck's
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, its the metric thing. We blame the Europeans, they did it first.
> > OTOH, I'd hazard a guess you paid less for it than we do here.
> >
> <<>>
> The becks I'm drinking here is a full 12 oz.

Is that legal in Euro?

I think it must be bottled in USA.

[Richard Henry]

"AstroPax" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?
>
> If you are implying that it's some 3.2% Labatt Blue in my
> refrigerator, then you are sadly mistaken.
>
> FYI, because I'm retired USAF, I purchase all of my "beverages" at the
> Hill Air Force Base liquor (Class VI) store, which is not affected by
> Utah law, being a federal installation and all.
>
> Excellent selection, BTW.
>
> One can purchase kegs (illegal in Utah), and booze too, 7 days/week,
> including Sundays.
>
> Bwaa ha ha!

Those heathen Americans!

[Norm]

"LePheaux" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Norm" > wrote in message
> news:jMGEd.46361$6l.36511@pd7tw2no...
>>
>> "AstroPax" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can do 12 oz. curls
>>>
>>> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>>> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>>>
>>> I feel ripped-off, damned Canuck's
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, its the metric thing. We blame the Europeans, they did it first.
>> OTOH, I'd hazard a guess you paid less for it than we do here.
>>
> <<>>
> The becks I'm drinking here is a full 12 oz.

Are you sure? I find all the Becks available here, can or bottle, to be
330ml which translates to just a hair over 11 oz.
http://www.bcliquorstores.com/en/products?keyword=becks&gKey=

ANYWAY, the question remains - whaddya pay for a Dz of Labatt Blue there?

>

[Norm]

"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
> > wrote this crap:
>
>>> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>>> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>>
>>Maybe it's a metric thing.
>>
>>I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?
>
>
> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
> volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
> of the high alcohol content.
>
>
>

No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.

[Harry Weiner]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:17:36 GMT, "Norm" > wrote
this crap:

>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.


I'll have to mention that to my bartender, and tell him to charge less
for a bottle.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[Mary Malmros]

AstroPax wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?
>
>
> If you are implying that it's some 3.2% Labatt Blue in my
> refrigerator, then you are sadly mistaken.

Hey, I used to love the stuff, but after months of drinking Steel Rail,
I bought a six of Blue to economize, and gave myself a lesson in false
economy. Now I save money by buying Rail by the growler.

> FYI, because I'm retired USAF, I purchase all of my "beverages" at the
> Hill Air Force Base liquor (Class VI) store, which is not affected by
> Utah law, being a federal installation and all.
>
> Excellent selection, BTW.

Envy!

> One can purchase kegs (illegal in Utah), and booze too, 7 days/week,
> including Sundays.
>
> Bwaa ha ha!

Being a just-over-the-state-line-from-VT resident of MA, I've been able
to get alcohol on Sundays even before the rest of the state could. It's
come in handy.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[LePheaux]

"Suzieflame" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:07:32 -0700, AstroPax >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?
>>
>>If you are implying that it's some 3.2% Labatt Blue in my
>>refrigerator, then you are sadly mistaken.
>>
>>FYI, because I'm retired USAF, I purchase all of my "beverages" at the
>>Hill Air Force Base liquor (Class VI) store, which is not affected by
>>Utah law, being a federal installation and all.
>>
>>Excellent selection, BTW.
>>
>>One can purchase kegs (illegal in Utah), and booze too, 7 days/week,
>>including Sundays.
>>
>>Bwaa ha ha!
>
> It's pretty funny that you think that is something special or worthy
> of note. Most civilized countries (i.e., mainland Europe) don't even
> think twice about trusting their citizens with alcohol anytime they
> choose to use it and not endanger others. i can buy alcohol in petrol
> stations. Kids can drink wine or even beer at the table and nobody
> frowns. Alcohol abuse is minimal, and even use is declining over time.
<<>>
Hey now. don't try and lump ootah in with the rest of the USA.
THE ONLY THING I repeat only thing ootah has going for it is that fresh
fluffy deep snow.

[tiandiren]

Sven Golly wrote:
> "tiandiren" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Those without substance cannot be impressed.
>
> Those who post under changing aliases cannot be trusted.

A faceless persona talks about trust, interesting. Do you know how
varify your statement?

>
> > sting
>
> SWAT!! Bzzz. Bzzzzt. bzz.. b... zz. t...

Feeling being buzzed? Watch out for the sting.

sting
>
> --
> Sven Golly
> Trolling as usual
> Remove the _ to reply

[bdubya]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:56:08 -0700, AstroPax >
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:36:23 -0700, I wrote:
>
>>I can do 12 oz. curls
>
>Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>
>I feel ripped-off, damned Canuck's

Where did you get the idea that they were 12 oz?

bw

[bdubya]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:17:36 GMT, "Norm" >
wrote:

>
>"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mary Malmros
>> > wrote this crap:
>>
>>>> Funny thing, I just noticed that these 12 oz. bottles of Labatt Blue
>>>> that I've been drinking are actually 11.5 oz.
>>>
>>>Maybe it's a metric thing.
>>>
>>>I'm curious: how many of 'em does it take for you to get a buzz on?
>>
>>
>> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>> volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>> of the high alcohol content.
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>

You lose if you buy those little bottles. The "pint" bottles of
Zywiec (or Okocim) are actually half-liters, which are 16.9 oz, which
means I win. And that's before you adjust for ABV.

bw

[Walt]

bdubya wrote:

> "Norm" > wrote:

>>
>>. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.

>
> You lose if you buy those little bottles. The "pint" bottles of
> Zywiec (or Okocim) are actually half-liters, which are 16.9 oz, which
> means I win.

So what did you win? A weekend trip to the Mighty Caberfae? A
chili-dog & an 8x10 glossy of Fernando Lamas? A DVD of the directors
cut of Ishtar? A pre-recorded phone call from Art linkletter saying
"You may already be a winner."? What?


--
//-Walt
//
// Wieners never quit, quitters never wein.

[The Real Bev]

Suzieflame wrote:

> > wrote:
>
> >Hey, I used to love the stuff, but after months of drinking Steel Rail,
> >I bought a six of Blue to economize, and gave myself a lesson in false
> >economy. Now I save money by buying Rail by the growler.
>
> Not wishing to be overly prudish, but don't you think that relatives
> of those who have died at the hand of drunk drivers and who read this
> newsgroup could be offended by that rather graphic description of your
> bingeing sessions?

If they are I'm sure they'll let us know.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ==============
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed

[LePheaux]

"tiandiren" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Sven Golly wrote:
>> "tiandiren" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> > Those without substance cannot be impressed.
>>
>> Those who post under changing aliases cannot be trusted.
>
> A faceless persona talks about trust, interesting. Do you know how
> varify your statement?
>
>>
>> > sting
>>
>> SWAT!! Bzzz. Bzzzzt. bzz.. b... zz. t...
>
> Feeling being buzzed? Watch out for the sting.
<<>>
You relize you come off sounding like a drunken german girlyboy.
pick a nick Yunlung, tiandiren,dmitry.
BTW
tiandiren translates to a young gay boy in love with chicken.

[Harry Weiner]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:11 +0100, Suzieflame
> wrote this crap:

>Not wishing to be overly prudish, but don't you think that relatives
>of those who have died at the hand of drunk drivers and who read this
>newsgroup could be offended by that rather graphic description of your
>bingeing sessions?


Like I give a rat's ass.






My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[CParker]

"Norm" > wrote in message
news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>> volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>> of the high alcohol content.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
> 11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
> just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.

How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?

C.

[Norm]

"CParker" <cparker6@houston.-Remove This-rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Norm" > wrote in message
> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>>
>> "Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>>> volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>>> of the high alcohol content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>> 11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>> just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>
> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>

Uh, beg pardon, that should have read "fluid oz". Sorry, I assumed most
people here had at least a passing familiarity with beer (y'know, that cold
brownish frothy stuff) and its customary method of measurement.

[MoonMan]

Norm wrote:
> "CParker" <cparker6@houston.-Remove This-rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Norm" > wrote in message
>> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>> "Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water
>>>> by volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz.
>>>> because of the high alcohol content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works
>>> out to
>>> 11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml
>>> which is just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose
>>> some.
>>
>> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>>
>
> Uh, beg pardon, that should have read "fluid oz". Sorry, I assumed
> most people here had at least a passing familiarity with beer
> (y'know, that cold brownish frothy stuff) and its customary method of
> measurement.

Cold? beer shouldn't be cold! and as far as I am concerned the smallest
customary measure is the 1/2

Chris *<:-)

[Mary Malmros]

CParker wrote:
> "Norm" > wrote in message
> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>
>>"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>>>volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>>>of the high alcohol content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>
>
> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?

Obviously it's based on the whole "a pint's a pound the world around",
and yes, the alcohol does make it less dense...but come on, we're
talking Labatt's here.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[VtSkier]

CParker wrote:
> "Norm" > wrote in message
> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>
>>"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>>>volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>>>of the high alcohol content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>
>
> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>
Well, you can't, but...
Beer is mostly water so knowing the density of alcohol
is pretty much moot. The alcohol content will be between
3.5 and 7.5 percent. Not a lot in the scheme of things, so:

We have all heard that a "pint's a pound, the world around".
therefore a fluid oz of water weighs approximately an ounce.

AND a ml (cubic centimeter) of water weighs a gram
therefore 355ml of water weighs 35.5 grams or just over 12oz.

(Actually a pint is just over a pound because a gallon of
water weighs 8.34 pounds)

Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.

> C.
>
>

[tiandiren]

LePheaux wrote:
> "tiandiren" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Sven Golly wrote:
> >> "tiandiren" > wrote in
> >> oups.com:
> >>
> >> > Those without substance cannot be impressed.
> >>
> >> Those who post under changing aliases cannot be trusted.
> >
> > A faceless persona talks about trust, interesting. Do you know how
> > varify your statement?
> >
> >>
> >> > sting
> >>
> >> SWAT!! Bzzz. Bzzzzt. bzz.. b... zz. t...
> >
> > Feeling being buzzed? Watch out for the sting.
> <<>>
> You relize you come off sounding like a drunken german girlyboy.
> pick a nick Yunlung, tiandiren,dmitry.
> BTW
> tiandiren translates to a young gay boy in love with chicken.

A view from the mind of a girly man, of course, "you can't help but to
perceive base on what you know."

sting

[MoonMan]

Suzieflame wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:31:11 -0000, "MoonMan"
> > wrote:
>
>> as far as I am concerned the smallest
>> customary measure is the 1/2
>
> Poof.

I didn't say it was the smallest drinkable measure

Chris *<:-)

[Walt]

Mary Malmros wrote:

> Obviously it's based on the whole "a pint's a pound the world around",
> and yes, the alcohol does make it less dense...

That's odd. Alcohol usually makes me more dense.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[MoonMan]

VtSkier wrote:
> CParker wrote:
>> "Norm" > wrote in message
>> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>> "Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water
>>>> by volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz.
>>>> because of the high alcohol content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works
>>> out to
>>> 11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml
>>> which is just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose
>>> some.
>>
>>
>> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>>
> Well, you can't, but...
> Beer is mostly water so knowing the density of alcohol
> is pretty much moot. The alcohol content will be between
> 3.5 and 7.5 percent. Not a lot in the scheme of things, so:
>
> We have all heard that a "pint's a pound, the world around".
> therefore a fluid oz of water weighs approximately an ounce.
>
> AND a ml (cubic centimeter) of water weighs a gram
> therefore 355ml of water weighs 35.5 grams or just over 12oz.
>
> (Actually a pint is just over a pound because a gallon of
> water weighs 8.34 pounds)
>
> Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
> a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.
>

But a pint is not a pint the world around, around here a pint of water
weighs 1.25lb because there are 8 pints in a Gallon and an Imperial Gallon
was originally defined as 10 lb of water (at 62F), now its defined as
4.54609 L :(

so Our pint's bigger than your pint :)

Chris *<:-)

[Norm]

"MoonMan" > wrote in message
news:cs3dtc$gic$1

> But a pint is not a pint the world around, around here a pint of water
> weighs 1.25lb because there are 8 pints in a Gallon and an Imperial Gallon
> was originally defined as 10 lb of water (at 62F), now its defined as
> 4.54609 L :(
>
> so Our pint's bigger than your pint :)
>

And its snowing here. Good to know a few things are still right in the
world.

[Mary Malmros]

Walt wrote:

> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>> Obviously it's based on the whole "a pint's a pound the world around",
>> and yes, the alcohol does make it less dense...
>
>
> That's odd. Alcohol usually makes me more dense.

The denseness goes out of the beer and into you. Really.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

[Mark A Framness]

rosco wrote:

>
>
> yunlong wrote:
>
>> Black Metal Martha wrote:
>> .....
>>
>>>I've had a board crash into my back. Fortunately, I wasn't hurt, but
>>>it's scary nontheless.
>>
>>
>> Skiing is a sport; scary, some call it thrilling, is a part of deal;
>> ski defensively and use common sense is the way to enjoy the sport
>> safely.
>>
>> No fear, :)
>> IS
>
>
> That is one of the most ignorant replies I have read in quite some time.
> I equate that with saying it is okay to ignore traffic laws because
> accidents are part of the deal and you must drive defensively or you
> will be a victim.

If some boob crashes into me when I am in the right it makes not a jot of
difference I am still crashed and possibly hurt. The post does not say go
crazy ignore the rules of the hill and if you ski defensively you will be
okay.




>
> Non-self-inflicted injury is NOT part of the deal. Defensive skiing is
> a good idea but that does not give stupid, brain-dead thrill seekers
> carte blanche to terrorize the common slopes.




>
> If you haven't noticed, there is some seriously SCARY behavior going on
> out there and the skier's code should be part of everyone's mantra. The

Defensive skiing like defensive driving is a recognition that there are a
given number of @$$holes who are not (for whatever reason) following the
rules of the slope or the rules of the road.

Defensive behavior is one that says "I may be in the right, but I do not
want to argue this with some idiot who just plowed into me" that I would
rather avoid accidents even it means I have to yield when I have the right
of way.



--
E-mail decoding instructions. Your keyboard is the key. Shift the letter on
the keyboard one position to the right for the plain-text. If the letter is
a w,s, or x then shift one position to the left for the plain text. For
example: "srg" (the first three letters of the host) is "ath" in plain
text.

[Mark A Framness]

Mary Malmros wrote:

> yunlong wrote:
>
>> "drive defensively" doesn't mean "to ignore traffic laws," and what
>> kind of "traffic laws" should skiing have, short of avoiding collision,
>> you think?
>
> Skiing _does_ have several "traffic laws", none of which is as
> simple-minded as, "avoid collision". In the United States, these "laws"

That is the point of the "traffic laws" to avoid accidents and collisions it
really does not have to be stated. Going above and beyond these "traffic
laws" is the recognition that one encounters on a regular basis people who
ignore those laws or put themselves in positions where they can not follow
them.

It is the responsibility of each and every skier to follow the
responsibility code. However, we all can recall experiences where we had to
go out of our way to avoid a road traffic accident. A HS buddy of mine
would cross roads w/o looking, his rationale? He had the right of way, try
explaining that to a car on top of you. Similarly it pays to keep an eye on
the people skiing around you.


--
E-mail decoding instructions. Your keyboard is the key. Shift the letter on
the keyboard one position to the right for the plain-text. If the letter is
a w,s, or x then shift one position to the left for the plain text. For
example: "srg" (the first three letters of the host) is "ath" in plain
text.

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:57:57 -0500, VtSkier >
wrote:

>CParker wrote:
>> "Norm" > wrote in message
>> news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>>"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>>>>volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>>>>of the high alcohol content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>>>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>>>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>>
>>
>> How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>>
>Well, you can't, but...
>Beer is mostly water so knowing the density of alcohol
>is pretty much moot. The alcohol content will be between
>3.5 and 7.5 percent. Not a lot in the scheme of things, so:
>
>We have all heard that a "pint's a pound, the world around".

Not here (UK) it isn't.

>therefore a fluid oz of water weighs approximately an ounce.
>

There are 20 Fluid Oz to a UK pint. Which is 1.2 US pints.

OK, this still works out at 1Fl oz (UK) of water = 1 oz (UK) in
weight, since there are 8 pints to the gallon (160 fl oz), and a
gallon of water weighs 10lb.


>AND a ml (cubic centimeter) of water weighs a gram
>therefore 355ml of water weighs 35.5 grams or just over 12oz.
>
>(Actually a pint is just over a pound because a gallon of
>water weighs 8.34 pounds)
>

Again, a US Gallon. Ours are 10lb.

>Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
>a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.
>

Not a UK pint :-)

Beer is not 25% less heavy than water, and a pint of water weighs 1lb
4 oz (i.e. 1.25 lb)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Woman's mind is cleaner than man's; it changes more often

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[VtSkier]

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:57:57 -0500, VtSkier >
> wrote:
>
>
>>CParker wrote:
>>
>>>"Norm" > wrote in message
>>>news:4JNEd.50309$8l.31774@pd7tw1no...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Harry Weiner" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He's probably weighing them. Since alcohol weighs less than water by
>>>>>volume. So 12 ozs. by volume of Labatt's would weigh 11.5 oz. because
>>>>>of the high alcohol content.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, he's not. Labatt Blue is bottled in a 341ml bottle which works out to
>>>>11.5 and change US oz. If you buy it in the can OTOH, its 355ml which is
>>>>just a tiny bit more than 12oz. You win some, you lose some.
>>>
>>>
>>>How can you equate a volume (ml) to a weight (oz) without a density?
>>>
>>
>>Well, you can't, but...
>>Beer is mostly water so knowing the density of alcohol
>>is pretty much moot. The alcohol content will be between
>>3.5 and 7.5 percent. Not a lot in the scheme of things, so:
>>
>>We have all heard that a "pint's a pound, the world around".
>
>
> Not here (UK) it isn't.
>
>
>>therefore a fluid oz of water weighs approximately an ounce.
>>
>
>
> There are 20 Fluid Oz to a UK pint. Which is 1.2 US pints.
>
> OK, this still works out at 1Fl oz (UK) of water = 1 oz (UK) in
> weight, since there are 8 pints to the gallon (160 fl oz), and a
> gallon of water weighs 10lb.
>
>
>
>>AND a ml (cubic centimeter) of water weighs a gram
>>therefore 355ml of water weighs 35.5 grams or just over 12oz.
>>
>>(Actually a pint is just over a pound because a gallon of
>>water weighs 8.34 pounds)
>>
>
>
> Again, a US Gallon. Ours are 10lb.
>
>
>>Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
>>a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.
>>
>
>
> Not a UK pint :-)
>
> Beer is not 25% less heavy than water, and a pint of water weighs 1lb
> 4 oz (i.e. 1.25 lb)

Alex, you pedantic old bastid, you!

You are completely right of course. And I WAS talking in
US measure having completely forgotten how much more I
got out of a UK pint than the pints I drink here.

VtSkier

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:12:15 -0500, VtSkier >
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:57:57 -0500, VtSkier >
>> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>
>>>Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
>>>a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not a UK pint :-)
>>
>> Beer is not 25% less heavy than water, and a pint of water weighs 1lb
>> 4 oz (i.e. 1.25 lb)
>
>Alex, you pedantic old bastid, you!
>

You noticed!

And I didn't think you cared :-)


>You are completely right of course. And I WAS talking in
>US measure having completely forgotten how much more I
>got out of a UK pint than the pints I drink here.
>

AND ours taste better (ducks for cover :-)


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
As a matter of fact, no, I don't have a life.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[VtSkier]

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:12:15 -0500, VtSkier >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:57:57 -0500, VtSkier >
>>>wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>>Since alcohol does weigh less than water, I bet because of that,
>>>>a pint of beer weighs almost exactly a pound.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not a UK pint :-)
>>>
>>>Beer is not 25% less heavy than water, and a pint of water weighs 1lb
>>>4 oz (i.e. 1.25 lb)
>>
>>Alex, you pedantic old bastid, you!
>>
>
>
> You noticed!
>
> And I didn't think you cared :-)
>
>
>
>>You are completely right of course. And I WAS talking in
>>US measure having completely forgotten how much more I
>>got out of a UK pint than the pints I drink here.
>>
>
>
> AND ours taste better (ducks for cover :-)
>
>
I would be the first to agree, except that I am a
believer in drinking the local brew. Your beer tastes
better than most anything we can get in the states
*if you drink it from a tap in a pub in the UK*

But that same swill bottled and sent to US does NOT
taste as good as what we brew here (just 3 miles
downstream from my house) fresh, on tap at the local
pub.

And I do care.

VtSkier

[Walt]

VtSkier wrote:
> I would be the first to agree, except that I am a
> believer in drinking the local brew. Your beer tastes
> better than most anything we can get in the states
> *if you drink it from a tap in a pub in the UK*
>
> But that same swill bottled and sent to US does NOT
> taste as good as what we brew here (just 3 miles
> downstream from my house) fresh, on tap at the local
> pub.

Downstream, eh? Does that mean you drink recycled beer?

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[VtSkier]

Walt wrote:
> VtSkier wrote:
>
>> I would be the first to agree, except that I am a
>> believer in drinking the local brew. Your beer tastes
>> better than most anything we can get in the states
>> *if you drink it from a tap in a pub in the UK*
>>
>> But that same swill bottled and sent to US does NOT
>> taste as good as what we brew here (just 3 miles
>> downstream from my house) fresh, on tap at the local
>> pub.
>
>
> Downstream, eh? Does that mean you drink recycled beer?
>
Don't we all?

[LePheaux]

"tiandiren" > wrote in message

tiandiren translates to a young gay boy in love with chicken.

A view from the mind of a girly man, of course.

sting

[tiandiren]

LePheaux wrote:
> "tiandiren" > wrote in message
>
> tiandiren translates to a young gay boy in love with chicken.
>
> A view from the mind of a girly man, of course.

Try to snip a post out of context to pay lip service to your mutated
ego, eh? Girly man it is.

sting

>
> sting