How many rec.runners does it take to change a lightbulb?
sydenhams chorea
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light
bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
53 to flame the spell checkers
41 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to
condemn those 6 as anal-retentive
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "lightbulb"
is perfectly correct
156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation
of their "acceptable use policy"
109 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this
discussion to a lightbulb forum
203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and
lightbulb forum about changing light bulbs be stopped
111 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this forum
306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy
the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique
and what brands are faulty
27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and the post the corrected
URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this
group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all
headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy
19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three"
4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ
44 to ask what is a "FAQ"
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about
light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start
it all over again
Screachy Preachy
You forgot the Bill-what??-me-me-me-me-psychotik??-R factor:
Since he responds to almost each and every post, 2-3 times, under
various aliai, multiply the above total by about 3.
----------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms, rd
HoloBarre Rehab/Fitness/Stretching Systems, Yonkers, NY
to email: Remove the numeric value of pi in my address
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No biking 4me
himself. I still have the saved headrers and all. I'll change it, with
every post.Imposters still masquerade as me, but as we all know, there
can be only one. Any responses later on will be imposters since I'll
change it every time I sign on or off. Kind of spoils your fun, now
doesn't it Pigboy?
Pig F*****
That oinkey little creep....
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:06:39 GMT, No biking 4me <NonCyc...@rr.com>
wrote:
Mammal
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:09:49 GMT, Pig F***** <Pigkil...@recr.com>
wrote:
Manimal
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:09:49 GMT, Pig F***** <Pigkil...@recr.com>
wrote:
>I see, so it's actually the Pigs fault that you're changing ID's now?
The Original Bill Rodgers
keeps changing his name to post verbal waste in this group.
The Original Bill Rodgers
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:23:28 -0400, Screachy Preachy
<physic...@erols.com> wrote:
Trp100329
might do with the spent light bulb....
Terri
Len A.
34 oh and don't forget "Nike" lightbulbs will cause injury.
Rocker
wrote:
>
>34 oh and don't forget "Nike" lightbulbs will cause injury.
I was in the vicinity at the illegitimate birth of N***
(unmentionable 4-letter word). I was their first paying customer.
During the first couple of years of their existence, the parent
company
of N*** sold "Tiger" shoes by the old Japanese company, Onitsuka.
These
Tigers were pretty good and I still have a couple of them in my
personal
pile of 147 worn-out running shoes. When the time came for the
company
to renew the contract, they told Onitsuka they wanted them to cheapen
their materials and assembly methods and hire workers for less money.
This was to increase profits and allow for more money to advertise the
inferior product. Onitsuka refused to go along with this, as they had
some pride in their tradition of excellence. So, the parent company
conjured up the N*** brand name. Manufacturing plants were set up
that
fit into the now infamous system of production and promotion that has
brought them so much criticism. At the beginning of their sales of
the
N*** brand, I made the mistake of using three of their different
models.
Each left me hobbled for weeks after only a few uses. Why did it take
me that long to figure things out? Since then, I wouldn't have worn
any
of their junk if it meant going barefoot-----which I did for several
years thereafter on soft trails. If I wanted to defeat a military
opponent, I would airdrop a million pair of N*** shoes on their
territory a month before invading.
Steve McDonald
"N*** shoes for every Iraqui!"
And then we have:
===========================
A thorn in Nike's side
DANIEL McCABE | Steve Robbins is the researcher Nike loves to hate.
The feeling is pretty much mutual.
Robbins, an adjunct professor in the McGill Centre for Studies in
Aging, has published studies indicating that high-priced running shoes
account for 123 per cent more foot injuries than cheaper sneakers. He
also aims to persuade the elderly, who enjoy the comfort of sneakers,
that running shoes aren't the best choice of footwear for them.
His work has earned a fair amount of press attention and Nike doesn't
much like the resulting publicity. Robbins, in turn, doesn't think
much of their tactics.
More on that later.
A recent paper by Robbins, published in The Journal of the American
Geriatric Society, looked at the question of seniors and sneakers.
Older people, who often have to contend with arthritic feet,
appreciate shoes with thick, soft soles made of highly compressible
materials.
That's why sneakers feel comfy on older feet. What the elderly don't
realize, says Robbins, is that running shoes also render them far more
unsteady on their feet.
This is all tied to what Robbins calls "foot position awareness."
Soft-soled shoes cause "wobbling as the material compresses -- you
wobble from side to side as you put weight on the material. This
wobbling tends to make people lose their sense of the position of
their foot in space." Our natural balancing mechanisms are thrown for
a loop as a consequence.
A better choice for seniors, argues Robbins, are shoes with thinner,
harder soles.
"The thicker the shoe and the softer the material, the higher the
degree of instability," notes Robbins. Of sneakers, he adds, "The
degree of instability that these shoes cause is truly remarkable.
"For example, a running shoe impairs measures of stability by
approximately 200 to 300 per cent as compared to a hard leather shoe.
That's a lot, considering that the difference between young and old
people in terms of their comparable foot stability is perhaps only 30
or 40 per cent.
"We associate poor balance with older people to begin with, but what
they're wearing on their feet makes a huge difference. Instability and
falls are a major cause of harm in older people. Wearing the proper
shoe might not only prevent fractures, it could save lives."
But do seniors have to sacrifice comfort for stability? Maybe not,
says Robbins.
He realizes that older people "have a high concern for comfort" so he
has been searching for a way to build a shoe that can be both cozy and
secure.
He thinks he's found it.
"We discovered that the sense of comfort is basically a skin
phenomenon. A softer material, even in a relatively thin layer,
diffuses localized pressures on the bottom of the foot and that's what
gives you a sense of higher comfort. "You don't need a thick layer.
The critical layer that supplies comfort is actually the layer that is
in the closest proximity to the bottom of the foot. Most of the
comfort that comes from wearing a running shoe is derived from the
layer that's within millimeters of the skin surface."
The next step was to find a substance that could provide extra comfort
in a safely thin layer. By Robbins's estimate, he and his team tested
hundreds of different materials before settling on a winner -- a
substance used as underpadding on tennis courts. Robbins describes the
material as low resiliency-- "that means when you compress it and then
remove the weight, it stays compressed."
It feels fine on a foot. More importantly, "when we put this new
material under the foot, balance actually improved by about 20 per
cent over a rigid surface.
"Now, this was the first time that anything interposing between a
rigid surface and the skin of the foot had actually improved balance.
We noticed a statistically significant improvement in every age group
that we examined."
Robbins says "it's inevitable" that somebody will seize on his
research results and start producing thin-sole shoes with the material
he's uncovered. But it probably won't be Nike or Reebok just yet.
"The problem is that the large shoe companies have invested heavily in
products that impair balance. The customer has been sold so much on
the softness of the sole and its so-called absorbing impact and how
important it is. It's hard to retain any kind of market credibility by
suddenly saying that everything we've been telling you for the last 20
years is bad for your health.
"Some of them may even be worried from a legal perspective. Some of
[the shoes] impair balance to such a degree they might be concerned
about liability."
Still, Robbins does notice thinner soles in some of the newer models
of running shoes and believes his studies have something to do with
it.
"I was shopping for basketball shoes for my daughter and I noticed
that a whole series of shoes are becoming extremely thin soled."
Robbins was pleased by the discovery.
"This notion that you need thick, soft running shoes to lower the
impact on your feet is a myth. The impact can actually be greater than
if you're just barefoot. When people wear [shoes that claim to absorb
impact], they act differently. They run differently." People become
more reckless when they think they're wearing a "super shoe."
Writing in The British Sports Medicine Journal, Robbins and his
collaborators argued, "Expensive footwear is subject to extremely
deceptive advertising.
"They are advertised to improve protection over cheaper products by
incorporating new features that protect, and more advanced safety
technology, yet epidemiological data indicate that users of more
expensive shoes are injured more frequently."
Research like that prompted the marketing director of Nike to send a
letter to one journal Robbins published in, claiming that Nike's own
studies found Robbins's work faulty. The missive was copied to the
attention of one Principal Bernard Shapiro.
Robbins viewed that as a not-so-subtle attempt to intimidate him. As
for Nike's charge that his research is suspect, Robbins bristles. "My
work is peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. What they
do is pseudo-science. It's there to support their marketing efforts."
Says Robbins, "I don't think [our research] is responsible for Nike's
shares falling dramatically last year, but I don't think it helped
them any either."
His contentious relationship with running shoe companies has made him
wary of university/industry collaborations.
"I think there is an inherent conflict. The secrecy and commercial
concerns you find in industry often don't allow for good scientific
research. It's all the rage recently to have alliances with industry
in medical research. I honestly don't think this is in the public
interest.
"Just imagine if my research had been funded by the running shoe
industry. What would have happened to the public dissemination of our
results?"
The Original Bill Rodgers
Stephanie
Stefanie
trp1...@cs.com (Trp100329) wrote in message news:<20030720185721...@mb-m22.news.cs.com>...
Kaz Kylheku
> 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
[ snip recycled Usenet humor ]
Nothing that is specific to rec.running in that list!
How about:
1 to recommend that for every revolution of the light bulb, that
poster should take one day off from changing any more light bulbs in
order to achieve a personal best on the next single lightbulb change.
3 to flame the previous one's gross overestimate of the recovery time.
1 to assert that by taking breaks in between rotations, he achieves an
overall lower time
15 to rain flames on the previous poster's complete lack of dedication
to the true spirit of the lightbulb changing sport.
2 to ask about the total time, as well as the split upon removing the
old bulb, and revolution lap times down to the 100th of a second.
1 to say that his PR was *half* that sometime in the 80's, you wussy!
1 to ask about the changer's profile: height, weight, age, sex, HR max
and other factors, like how many years spent changing lighbulbs. Then
to confirm that the performance was about right for the profile.
1 to insist that he started out too fast in the first few revolutions,
and that to achieve a ``perfect'' light bulb change he should aim for
a slightly negative split: install the new bulb slightly faster than
removing the old one.
2 to provide contradictory post-lightbulb-change stretching advice.
5 to debate the merits of whether to pause between removal and
replacement, how long to pause, how to be ready to minimize the pause,
etc.
6 to discuss the proper hydration, caloric intake and whatnot, and the
timing of consumption of various liquids, foods and analgesics during
the lightbulb change.
3 to discuss how to estimate the changer's VO2 max and lactate
threshold from a single lightbulb change, and what formula to use to
predict the time for 100 lightbulb changes.
1 to ask about a weird, sharp pain in the wrist that occurs exactly
halfway through a lightbulb removal, then goes away, and then pulsates
during the insertion of the new bulb, whether it is common in
lightbulb changers, what is it called, and should he take time off?
3 to say they have no idea what that is, but clearly requires a
doctor.
1 to pipe in with a reminder that you should never take the advice of
a non-lightbulb-changer as the final word, and that complete rest is
rarely the best strategy for most lightbulb-changing injuries.
1 to recommend alternating ice and heat: with the clever tip that the
lightbulb itself can provide the heat.
1 to ask whether it's accceptable to have the switch on so that the
new bulb comes on as soon as a contact is made.
2 to tell the previous guy he is clearly cutting the course: the
switch should be off, and the time must include the act of diving for
the switch.
1 to complain about lightbulbs made by slave labor in some third world
country, the contribution of discarded lightbulbs to the garbage
problem and how the evil, greedy corporations could easily make a
lightbulb that lasts 100 years.
steve common
>1 to assert that by taking breaks in between rotations, he achieves an
>overall lower time
>
>15 to rain flames on the previous poster's complete lack of dedication
>to the true spirit of the lightbulb changing sport.
<chortle>
>1 to insist that he started out too fast in the first few revolutions,
>and that to achieve a ``perfect'' light bulb change he should aim for
>a slightly negative split: install the new bulb slightly faster than
>removing the old one.
>
>2 to provide contradictory post-lightbulb-change stretching advice.
<snigger>
>3 to discuss how to estimate the changer's VO2 max and lactate
>threshold from a single lightbulb change, and what formula to use to
>predict the time for 100 lightbulb changes.
>
>1 to ask about a weird, sharp pain in the wrist that occurs exactly
>halfway through a lightbulb removal, then goes away, and then pulsates
>during the insertion of the new bulb, whether it is common in
>lightbulb changers, what is it called, and should he take time off?
>
>3 to say they have no idea what that is, but clearly requires a
>doctor.
<Guffaw>
>1 to ask whether it's accceptable to have the switch on so that the
>new bulb comes on as soon as a contact is made.
>
>2 to tell the previous guy he is clearly cutting the course: the
>switch should be off, and the time must include the act of diving for
>the switch.
>
>1 to complain about lightbulbs made by slave labor in some third world
>country, the contribution of discarded lightbulbs to the garbage
>problem and how the evil, greedy corporations could easily make a
>lightbulb that lasts 100 years.
ROFLMAO (me too ;-)