FLU

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:13:18 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 06:19:20 -0000 (UTC), dave
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:38:31 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 05:50:19 -0000 (UTC), dave
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:15:59 +0700, John B. wrote:

epic snip

... No two weeks vacation either,
you got to get the plowing done and the garden in or there won't
be anything to eat next winter.


Hint: Agricultural things have progressed quite well since you were
a kid. Nowadays they have GPS controlled combines which can be
operated by staff and not only the owner of the farm.

Sure. Combine harvesting has been going on even longer then I've
been around and they are expensive, which is why you seldom see one
in the normal farmer's inventory. But what you don't think about is
that to be economical combine harvesting can only be used in large
fields that are relatively flat have straight boundaries. It isn't
effective in fields that are irregular in shape or are not
relatively flat.

Have you read " The Grapes of Wrath"?

Certainly. It was a lot of years ago but I don't remember anything
about Combine Harvesters. I remember that the harvests had failed and
everyone left for California.

The harvests were down. But the main focus was the industrialisation of
farming and people being run off the land by banks buying up small
farms.
These were then joined together into easily tractorable long straight
lines.


Not to get into a big argument but I seem to remember that the main
point in the first part of the book was the fact that the rains had
failed and turned that part of the country into a "dust bowl" and that
there was no work, no food, no nothing. And yes, people lost their land
when they didn't pay their bills, but that was hardly a practice
restricted to Oklahoma. But worse, as the farmers defaulted on their
loans banks failed at a high rate and there was simply no credit
available at all.

But yes, there were underlying reasons. The common use of tractors
allowed plowing much wider areas than a man and a horse could plow,
tractors were far more powerful and allowed deep plowing which destroyed
the deep root structures of the prairie grasses but the basic reason was
a series of droughts during most of the 1930's. It created what was
quite literally a dust bowl with 75% of the top soil blown away. Over an
area of 100,000,000 acres.

It also triggered (I believe) the largest immigration in U.S. history
with something like approximately 3.5 million people moved out of the
area in the period from approximately 1930 - 1940.

Sounds about right. I'll shut up now.

--
davethedave

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 11:18:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2017 1:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-29 09:38, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:16:03 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
snip


[...]

And sure studies are made of the pressures of city life... All
you need to do is write up a good proposal and get the grant
and away you go. A government funded study. We get them over
here. Every few years you see an article in the Bangkok
newspaper about someone that got yet another grant to study
"Prostitution in Thailand". So ignoring the fact that
prostitution have been studied innumerable times in the past
some bloke gets a grant to study them once again.


Having lived in the country and in the city, I don't need
studies. I know and made my choices accordingly. Interestingly my
wife who grew up in a huge city sees it the same way. She would
never move back there.

Well yes, the best of both worlds. Out of the built up areas and
still close enough that one can drive into town for shows and
shopping. One might call it the dilettante life style.

The problem with this conversation is that Joerg oscillates between
the abstract "country" and the reality of Cameron Park -- which is a
golf-course community with an "airpark" in the Sierra foothills up
the road from Sacramento.Â* It's a fine place to live if you like
suburban developments. It does put you near open space, but its not
the wild west, the Mid West or anything like the "country" that I
envision -- e.g. farm land or the mostly vacant land in eastern
Oregon.
https://traveloregon.com/wp-content/...ning_final.jpg



There isn't any "oscillation". What I am saying is that it takes very
few miles on roads or, preferred by me, on singletrack and I am in truly
pristine country. Totally rural, quiet, no traffic. To achieve this in a
major city can easily require an hour of riding on a bike.


Â*I have no problem with bedroom communities or small towns near large
towns. I'd live in one, and they can be quiet and relaxed -- unless
they're filled with angry drunk drivers and mountain lions.Â* For a
sleepy bedroom community, Cameron Park seems more dangerous and
stressful than NYC. And with planes buzzing around, it can't be that
quiet close to town -- but who knows.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacra...sion-good.html



It is correct that it is almost a bedroom community though we do have a
business park right in the village. Airplane noise, yes, but a Cessna
172 purring off into the distance is something different than the din of
traffic and other noise in a large city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWZkXjDYsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECGCoo3Ogxg

Again, false dichotomy. You pretend the only choices are the din of a
dense mega-city vs. a neighborhood so quiet you can hear the mountain
lions tiptoeing by.

My ride today was 47 miles. I was passed by maybe 100 cars the entire
time, most of those because I wandered around some old suburbs at the
end rather than riding directly home. There were several five mile
stretches where no cars passed me at all.

Yet if I'd chosen to ride northwest instead of southeast, I could have
ridden through two decent sized cities and their government buildings,
libraries, restaurants, entertainment venues, shopping malls and more.
And since I know all the roads and streets, including the quiet ones,
traffic would have been very easy for me to handle.

I thank God I'm not so timid as to be afraid to ride the roads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank what is your problem with Joerg's preference where to live or to ride bike?

Lou

On 11/30/2017 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 11:18:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2017 1:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-29 09:38, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:16:03 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
snip


[...]

And sure studies are made of the pressures of city life... All
you need to do is write up a good proposal and get the grant
and away you go. A government funded study. We get them over
here. Every few years you see an article in the Bangkok
newspaper about someone that got yet another grant to study
"Prostitution in Thailand". So ignoring the fact that
prostitution have been studied innumerable times in the past
some bloke gets a grant to study them once again.


Having lived in the country and in the city, I don't need
studies. I know and made my choices accordingly. Interestingly my
wife who grew up in a huge city sees it the same way. She would
never move back there.

Well yes, the best of both worlds. Out of the built up areas and
still close enough that one can drive into town for shows and
shopping. One might call it the dilettante life style.

The problem with this conversation is that Joerg oscillates between
the abstract "country" and the reality of Cameron Park -- which is a
golf-course community with an "airpark" in the Sierra foothills up
the road from Sacramento.Â* It's a fine place to live if you like
suburban developments. It does put you near open space, but its not
the wild west, the Mid West or anything like the "country" that I
envision -- e.g. farm land or the mostly vacant land in eastern
Oregon.
https://traveloregon.com/wp-content/...ning_final.jpg



There isn't any "oscillation". What I am saying is that it takes very
few miles on roads or, preferred by me, on singletrack and I am in truly
pristine country. Totally rural, quiet, no traffic. To achieve this in a
major city can easily require an hour of riding on a bike.


Â*I have no problem with bedroom communities or small towns near large
towns. I'd live in one, and they can be quiet and relaxed -- unless
they're filled with angry drunk drivers and mountain lions.Â* For a
sleepy bedroom community, Cameron Park seems more dangerous and
stressful than NYC. And with planes buzzing around, it can't be that
quiet close to town -- but who knows.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacra...sion-good.html



It is correct that it is almost a bedroom community though we do have a
business park right in the village. Airplane noise, yes, but a Cessna
172 purring off into the distance is something different than the din of
traffic and other noise in a large city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWZkXjDYsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECGCoo3Ogxg

Again, false dichotomy. You pretend the only choices are the din of a
dense mega-city vs. a neighborhood so quiet you can hear the mountain
lions tiptoeing by.

My ride today was 47 miles. I was passed by maybe 100 cars the entire
time, most of those because I wandered around some old suburbs at the
end rather than riding directly home. There were several five mile
stretches where no cars passed me at all.

Yet if I'd chosen to ride northwest instead of southeast, I could have
ridden through two decent sized cities and their government buildings,
libraries, restaurants, entertainment venues, shopping malls and more.
And since I know all the roads and streets, including the quiet ones,
traffic would have been very easy for me to handle.

I thank God I'm not so timid as to be afraid to ride the roads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank what is your problem with Joerg's preference where to live or to ride bike?

It's a reaction to Joerg's attitude that anyone else's choice is wrong.

Regarding where to ride bikes: he's quite explicit in his claims that
riding on roads is usually crazy dangerous and hazardous to one's
health. That is A) nuts, B) easily disproven by available data, and C)
it's anti-cycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Cal country road riding is dangerous

On 2017-11-29 17:01, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:01:31 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-28 16:50, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:50:41 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-27 16:21, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:16:19 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-27 12:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be
hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and
purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some
cars. One can't be too careful!


The one I took on Friday does come close to roads and even ... gasp
... Highway 50 at one spot where you can hear faint vroom vroom sounds.
Smells? Pine needle scent, foliage, earth, and oo, the occasionally
horse poop. I rather smell horse poop than the soot from a big Diesel.
You might be so city-addicted that you don't notice the difference but I
sure do.


Quite the opposite I would say. and, yes, I grew up in a rural
environment so I am familiar with all the smells that exist "out in
the country". But to those who actually reside in that environment
don't even notice them, they are part of the normal atmosphere.

It is only the city slickers who comment on "Oh... Smell the pine
trees. Of course there is an odor of pine trees, there ought to be as
all you can see is pine trees for miles around.

Your comment about smelling "horse poop" is a dead giveaway. The
correct term is "horse manure" and it is a normal part of the rural
atmosphere, or at least the normal rural atmosphere in areas where
horses are kept. In other areas it might be cow manure or chicken
manure and is a perfectly normal part of the environment where those
critters are raised.


As a little kid I grew up in farm country. Scientifically correct
expressions such as manure are mostly used by upscale folks that don't
live there. Locals call it poop or ****. Which is what it is. Sometimes
dung but that can already be seen as a frou-frou expression :-)


Strange comment. At least in my experience.

I never heard the term "**** spreader" used, they were called "manure
spreaders".


I heard that all the time, mostly in other languages. For example,
"Guelle Anhaenger" (ue is an umlaut in there) which loosely translates
to "**** trailer". That's how farmers called the "liquid manure" tank
trailers they carted to their fields, opened a valve and then pulled it
across behind the tractor. Leaving behind a serious stench.


If you want to include non-English languages to interpreted to English
than you open the gate to some pretty strange terms. For example, the
correct term, in Thai, for cigarette ash is "cigarette ****". An
ashtray is a "thing for cigarette ****". Of course "kee" the term I am
translating to "****" doesn't imply feces in Thai, it means something
more in line with the English term "waste".

If you want to go further abroad, the correct term to identify a
railway train is "fire wagon".

Logically, if you wish to argue English language terms then it is
probably logical to argue in English.


Well, pretty much all Texans I know call horse manure horse **** or
horse poop. Or is Texas outside the English language region in your
eyes? To some folks it is ...

[...]


What you do to maintain the chemicals necessary to support plant life
is spread "natural" fertilizers... i.e. manure on the farm land.


Yes, cow dung. BTDT.

Nope. Any type of manure although I seem to remember that chicken
manure was used with some caution as it tended to "burn the field" as
the old folks described it and chicken manure does have the highest
amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium of common farm manures
so perhaps they did know what they were talking about.


They successfully ran farms that way. Else their bank would have taken over.

Subsistence farming, i.e., a small family owned farm that supported
the family is, and probably has been for a generation or more, pretty
much a myth. Even when I was growing up in New England they were rare
as one simply couldn't make a living doing everything yourself.


Not at all. Many large farms out here (and where I grew up) are already
squeezed to the hilt with taxes, fees, costly labor rules and so on.
It's no subsistence, it's been their livelihood since generations.



So (to be a bit vulgar) first you grow the veggies in **** and then
you charge the city folks extra for doing so :-)


That's what they did where I grew up. They also sold the **** itself to
city dwellers to fertilize their flower beds. That must have been
noticed by investment bankers who, as Jay put it, sold "**** parfait" in
the shape of bundled mortgage "securities" except that those eventually
blew up.

You equate spreading manure on flower plants with spreading it on
vegetables and then selling them for a higher price because they are
"organic"?


City dwellers don't sell their plants. Why would they? It's some kind of
frou-frou phenomenon, dissing anything store-bought :-)


You know, that really says something about intelligence levels of the
city folks who buy the stuff doesn't it.


Maybe. Anyhow, I know that I live in the country when the supermarket
sells steer manure, has horse feed supplement in the main aisle and the
local radio station plays Stable Mix commercials.

You wrote the other day describing a palatial mansion "custom built" I
believe was your term, and you frequently talk about your wife
complaining about mud in the garage and now you are trying to imply
that you live in an environment with horses?


Yes, it takes minutes on my bike to get to where lots of horses are. I
never said owned a mansion because we don't.


I'd have to point out that the average horse produces about 37 pounds
of feces and 2.4 gallons of urine daily, which totals about 50 pounds
of raw waste per day in feces and urine combined.


My MTB tires know that and so do the backs of my riding T-shirts :-)


If your wife complains about the mud from one small mountain bike I
really doubt that you are stabling any horses.


We aren't, other are.


The radio programs advertising animal feed is obviously not germane
when discussing your living accommodations.


They do not run such ads if there isn't a lucrative local market.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-11-29 19:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:


I'd have to point out that the average horse produces about 37 pounds
of feces and 2.4 gallons of urine daily, which totals about 50 pounds
of raw waste per day in feces and urine combined.

About that:

A few years ago, my wife and I were on a driving trip heading west and
decided to head north through Michigan and camp at Michigan's Upper
Peninsula.

Along the way, we spontaneously decided to visit Mackinac Island, a
small car-free resort island in Lake Huron. People get around the island
by foot, by bike or by horse-drawn carriage. It sounded charming, and
we'd never been there.

We called ahead to reserve a hotel room, then loaded our bikes onto the
ferry and disembarked at the island. Walking from the dock to the main
street, we passed through a sort of long roofed arcade, and I got
worried: Do they have lots of homeless bums here, who pee anywhere they
want to? The smell of urine was _very_ strong!

Once we got to the charming main street, I stopped worrying about bums.
The problem was horses. The gutters were literally running with horse ****.

And it occurred to me: This is probably how all cities smelled before
the motor car arrived to remove the horse pollution.


That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was
from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the
village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never
bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads
does though, big time.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-11-29 22:22, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:44:55 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:01:55 +0700, John B.
wrote:

The radio programs advertising animal feed is obviously not germane
when discussing your living accommodations.

Not to mention that the vast majority of the horses in the United
States are pets -- horse feed in the supermarket is a sure sign that
you are *not* in farming country.


Many horses here are pets but there are also people working in
agriculture or private forest management who use them to get around.
Especially when the trip contains sections where ATVs or dirt bikes are
not allowed. Then there are the hardcore cowboys who ride their horse to
Safeway and back, boots, hat and all. Often I have to dodge horse poop
on the shoulder or in the bike lane along county roads. That sure isn't
from any pet-riding.


Back when we had horses I never saw horse feed in a sack small enough
that you could carry it out of the supermarket :-)


Read more precisely. I talked about feed supplement, not feed. But even
for the supplement you better show up with a pickup truck.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:40:00 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-29 17:01, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:01:31 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-28 16:50, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:50:41 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-27 16:21, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:16:19 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-27 12:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be
hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and
purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some
cars. One can't be too careful!


The one I took on Friday does come close to roads and even ... gasp
... Highway 50 at one spot where you can hear faint vroom vroom sounds.
Smells? Pine needle scent, foliage, earth, and oo, the occasionally
horse poop. I rather smell horse poop than the soot from a big Diesel.
You might be so city-addicted that you don't notice the difference but I
sure do.


Quite the opposite I would say. and, yes, I grew up in a rural
environment so I am familiar with all the smells that exist "out in
the country". But to those who actually reside in that environment
don't even notice them, they are part of the normal atmosphere.

It is only the city slickers who comment on "Oh... Smell the pine
trees. Of course there is an odor of pine trees, there ought to be as
all you can see is pine trees for miles around.

Your comment about smelling "horse poop" is a dead giveaway. The
correct term is "horse manure" and it is a normal part of the rural
atmosphere, or at least the normal rural atmosphere in areas where
horses are kept. In other areas it might be cow manure or chicken
manure and is a perfectly normal part of the environment where those
critters are raised.


As a little kid I grew up in farm country. Scientifically correct
expressions such as manure are mostly used by upscale folks that don't
live there. Locals call it poop or ****. Which is what it is. Sometimes
dung but that can already be seen as a frou-frou expression :-)


Strange comment. At least in my experience.

I never heard the term "**** spreader" used, they were called "manure
spreaders".


I heard that all the time, mostly in other languages. For example,
"Guelle Anhaenger" (ue is an umlaut in there) which loosely translates
to "**** trailer". That's how farmers called the "liquid manure" tank
trailers they carted to their fields, opened a valve and then pulled it
across behind the tractor. Leaving behind a serious stench.


If you want to include non-English languages to interpreted to English
than you open the gate to some pretty strange terms. For example, the
correct term, in Thai, for cigarette ash is "cigarette ****". An
ashtray is a "thing for cigarette ****". Of course "kee" the term I am
translating to "****" doesn't imply feces in Thai, it means something
more in line with the English term "waste".

If you want to go further abroad, the correct term to identify a
railway train is "fire wagon".

Logically, if you wish to argue English language terms then it is
probably logical to argue in English.


Well, pretty much all Texans I know call horse manure horse **** or
horse poop. Or is Texas outside the English language region in your
eyes? To some folks it is ...

[...]


What you do to maintain the chemicals necessary to support plant life
is spread "natural" fertilizers... i.e. manure on the farm land.


Yes, cow dung. BTDT.

Nope. Any type of manure although I seem to remember that chicken
manure was used with some caution as it tended to "burn the field" as
the old folks described it and chicken manure does have the highest
amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium of common farm manures
so perhaps they did know what they were talking about.


They successfully ran farms that way. Else their bank would have taken over.

Subsistence farming, i.e., a small family owned farm that supported
the family is, and probably has been for a generation or more, pretty
much a myth. Even when I was growing up in New England they were rare
as one simply couldn't make a living doing everything yourself.


Not at all. Many large farms out here (and where I grew up) are already
squeezed to the hilt with taxes, fees, costly labor rules and so on.
It's no subsistence, it's been their livelihood since generations.


What was there about "small family owned farm" that you didn't
understand?

You might also want to google "Subsistence farming" try
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subsistence-farming

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-29 19:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:


I'd have to point out that the average horse produces about 37 pounds
of feces and 2.4 gallons of urine daily, which totals about 50 pounds
of raw waste per day in feces and urine combined.

About that:

A few years ago, my wife and I were on a driving trip heading west and
decided to head north through Michigan and camp at Michigan's Upper
Peninsula.

Along the way, we spontaneously decided to visit Mackinac Island, a
small car-free resort island in Lake Huron. People get around the island
by foot, by bike or by horse-drawn carriage. It sounded charming, and
we'd never been there.

We called ahead to reserve a hotel room, then loaded our bikes onto the
ferry and disembarked at the island. Walking from the dock to the main
street, we passed through a sort of long roofed arcade, and I got
worried: Do they have lots of homeless bums here, who pee anywhere they
want to? The smell of urine was _very_ strong!

Once we got to the charming main street, I stopped worrying about bums.
The problem was horses. The gutters were literally running with horse ****.

And it occurred to me: This is probably how all cities smelled before
the motor car arrived to remove the horse pollution.


That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was
from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the
village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never
bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads
does though, big time.

But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it?

At least I remember someone writing about somewhere in the N.W. (I
think) where they sprayed liquefied manure on fields and how obnoxious
the smell was.

Apparently some like the smell of manure and some like diesel smoke
:-)

Heck, there are even some that get "turned on" by sniffing glue.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2017-12-01 16:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 13:44:31 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-11-29 19:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:


I'd have to point out that the average horse produces about 37 pounds
of feces and 2.4 gallons of urine daily, which totals about 50 pounds
of raw waste per day in feces and urine combined.

About that:

A few years ago, my wife and I were on a driving trip heading west and
decided to head north through Michigan and camp at Michigan's Upper
Peninsula.

Along the way, we spontaneously decided to visit Mackinac Island, a
small car-free resort island in Lake Huron. People get around the island
by foot, by bike or by horse-drawn carriage. It sounded charming, and
we'd never been there.

We called ahead to reserve a hotel room, then loaded our bikes onto the
ferry and disembarked at the island. Walking from the dock to the main
street, we passed through a sort of long roofed arcade, and I got
worried: Do they have lots of homeless bums here, who pee anywhere they
want to? The smell of urine was _very_ strong!

Once we got to the charming main street, I stopped worrying about bums.
The problem was horses. The gutters were literally running with horse ****.

And it occurred to me: This is probably how all cities smelled before
the motor car arrived to remove the horse pollution.


That's how it was in the village where I grew up except the smell was
from "cow ****". The local ranchers regularly drove herds through the
village. There was only that one street so no other options. It never
bothered me. Diesel exhaust blasting into my face while riding on roads
does though, big time.

But that is very much a matter of personal preference, isn't it?


You do know the difference between a nuisance smell and potential lung
cancer, don't you?


At least I remember someone writing about somewhere in the N.W. (I
think) where they sprayed liquefied manure on fields and how obnoxious
the smell was.

Apparently some like the smell of manure and some like diesel smoke
:-)


I don't know either. However, Diesel smoke and soot causes nothing but
complaints while "rural scents" aren't too bothersome to people like me
who are used to them.


Heck, there are even some that get "turned on" by sniffing glue.


Or the "new tube smell" a cyclist experiences :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/