1a2bcio8

Really good riding. I'm especially digging the clean editing/over all feel of the video, despite the fact the music doesn't really do it for me.

I really enjoyed that. Had something that a lot of trials videos lack

To think of the universe as having an edge is probably, in my estimation, a problem of semantics or words. The word we use to describe the universe has certain qualities and we tend to mix them up with the thing that the word describes. Therefore, because a word contains a boundary, or 'edge' we think that the ineffable thing it describes also has a boundary or edge. Not that I know if the universe has an edge, this just seems worth considering, to my mind, before you ask the aforementioned question. Regarding space expanding, depending on what you mean, I can see a potential flaw in claiming such knowledge. If you are measuring space (as in matter-less or measurable-less area), you could only possible know if it were expanding if there was some measurable quality opposing it, at it's end. You can only measure something that is not there when it is contrasted with something that is there, regarding the perception of some measuring device (including the human nervous system). So if they do know that 'space', as I define it, is expanding then I guess there must be an edge that science knows about? As far as I'm aware, science doesn't know of something measurable at the end of space? I'm thinking that some of you are actually describing measurable matter, such as planets and stars, as something which is expanding. I see this as making sense and being testable at this point in time. I think however that this misses the initial question. Unless I've ballsed up my understanding

Thank you Tomm, same to you I agree with your description of scientific understanding and it's limits. That's why I'm a model agnostic. I think though that a lot of people perceive science as something absolute, that transcends the limits of human perception allowing us to definitely understand the universe's governing rules. Science is another god in contemporary, social religion. However, you only have to consider the occurrence of paradigm shifts across our history (the largest experiment yet) to know that what seems definitely correct now is likely to be found as incorrect in some sense or degree at a later point in time. That is, if we apply the same method of science to our records of history (accepting the intrinsic difficulties with historical data). Additionally it's important to consider that science is a human construction, used by fallible humans. It's inevitably open to human prejudice (desire) which can enslave rational thought (rationalization) for it's own purposes. This is obvious when looking at the differing scientific factions within any area of science. How many of them have a vested interest in their position? (financial, social position, etc.). This is why I practice the sciences of mind such as yoga and Buddhism, so that I might understand when I'm being influenced by such bio-programming. Interestingly, in regards to your statement about having to eat plants, adept Yogis (of the very rare kind) claim the ability to live off just oxygen. I think that I can imagine individuals with such control over and efficiency in action of themselves that they might only require minimal amounts of energy. However, they also claim to receive most of their energy from something called 'prana', which means 'vital force'; the idea being that there are differing levels of existence or being that converge over a spectrum which most of us are unaware of. They also claim plants as being sentient, albeit to a lesser degree than humans. The yogic justification for eating plants is that they are mostly a necessity for the survival of higher beings (humans, etc.) and it is better to eat that which is harmed less (as opposed to animals). Maybe nonsense, maybe not

Ok, I see what you're saying. Pain or 'hurt' is actually a reaction to a reaction; in humans, an emotional (albeit, probably another physiological condition) response to a, physiological (nociceptive as an example) condition? This is interesting because what you're saying highlights the fact that we give meaning to experience. We create pain from what is, in itself, just experience, or material (biochemical) interaction. This is what the mystical religions always ramble on about (including Hinduism). I'm still not able to completely rule out that through some kind of synergy, a plant may not be able to react to a physiological condition. That perhaps, in some sense, a plant has a mind of some kind. This may seem far out but to quote Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Your reasoning has strongly moved my opinion in your direction but I can still see the potential for a differing actuality. When you say about knowing something is 'bad', I think you're missing Tomm's point. He's basically saying, I think, that there exists no biological structure to identify something as bad. in the sense that you can program a robot to react to things without a perception of good or bad. It's the same with the idea of 'desire'. Pure mechanics basically. When you're talking about bad, you're actually projecting your human capacity of perceiving things as 'bad' onto a plant. So easily done In a similar sense, we always project our own egos onto everyone else's within the human realm, assuming that we think and feel the same way.

I've heard that the latest research is suggestive of plants feeling some form of pain. It makes evolutionary sense. I'm sure situations arise in a plants environment whereby the avoidance of pain (the direction is grows?) may ultimately save a plants life. It must be a very difficult thing to know though. It's interesting the way in which people lack empathy toward other people. There doesn't seem to be much attempt to understand the situation from another point of view (the Hindu's view). I think that the monks in consideration have a large emotional investment in that cow, arising from their culture/religion (in the same way all of you have strong emotional investments conditioned by your own culture). Nobody really seems to be considering this. Instead the prevailing behavior is for the monks to be lumped under the label, 'religion' and dealt with accordingly. The problem with this is the prejudice that is common to such a label (especially from atheists - ironically the other religion of belief) and the way in which that label stops people evaluating something as it is, separate to other things that also fall under the same label. You're all involved in some kind of religion (the collective belief in some set of ideas). It just so happens that your religion is your culture or country, and your god is the law. That sounds like fun Regarding the vegetarianism, as Tomm says, I usually receive less respect than I do negative judgment. As far as I'm concerned, other people can eat meat. If it suits them to do so, I would encourage them. We're all individuals that require different things. Some people require meat, some people don't. Tomm, I think you're being anthropomorphic. I don't think that you would necessarily need a nervous system to experience some form of pain. That's seems to me a big assumption. Additionally you don't need to remember pain for it to be useful, it can be used for homeostasis (the pain remains until a behavior occurs that removes the pain). Finally, in what sense do you mean comprehension? The plant must surely be comprehending, in some sense, the instructions that cause its construction or development? Some kind of communication is intrinsically necessary for a plant to exist in the way that it does. Can pain not be a part of this mechanism? What if you think of it's pain as different to that of human pain? Also, I think it's worth considering the concept of synergy in this regard. A plant may seem incapable, based on the way it looks, of experiencing pain but it says nothing of what occurs through the sum total of its parts. Much like the way, in humans, the mind is an additional product (despite the fact we can't find it yet) of the biological parts that underpin it. Perhaps I'm being anthropomorphic

Whatever happened to the Firth brothers? Do they still ride at all?

I'd emphasis stretching after the ride. I find this tends to be more important regarding aching muscles (especially the next day) whereas stretching before tends to help with not straining/damaging muscles that aren't ready for certain activity. Additionally, if you make sure you muscles are loose for that night's sleep you should sleep better. This is a well proven thing, sleeping with tension results in poor sleep and good sleep obviously correlates with good recovery regarding both muscles and energy. I think perhaps it also makes sense to build up and build down the intensity of your activity. Be gentle in your transitions from rest-to-activity, activity-to-rest. And as everyone else says, eat that which aids recovery and maintenance of energy. I'd avoid chocolate and pizza if you're after longevity Good luck though, that sounds like a very intense activity you're attempting.

Although I wouldn't do the same, it's nice to see somebody with a good intention

I think it looks good. Stylish but simple. It's definitely easy to navigate which I think is essential for a website that is selling something. I'd say "good job", Matt Makes me want a 24" curtis frame though. Maybe one day

That was superb. You've both improved your riding. Shame there aren't more videos like this that mix it up

My gf had had enough by midday on the Friday and we tried to leave only to find the roads were now rivers. There was no escape and in trying we trashed the underside of her car - the drive shaft or something. Therefore we had to (thankfully) return to the festival where I had a marvelous time completely drugged out of my face with wet feet all the way. Our friends set up their tent facing the wrong direction and they ended up with a pool tent and wet everything. Good times!

I'm sure that was some very good riding. Difficult to tell what he was doing though because the lense distortion was to such a high degree. Not a fan of fisheye for most trials riding. It has it's place, in my mind, and I wouldn't use it on moves that are about hight or distance. Quite liked the editing though; nice and clean. I think the fisheye was good from a creative editing perspective.

That's in Swindon. 'tis a lovely object eh...

I think it should be sorted now. I added some "required" information. Can somebody let me know if it is sorted please?

It works fine for me, I test downloaded it from the post I made... So sorry but I don't think I can help.

Word up Homies, Anyway, I've made a new vid that, after 3 months of sitting on my desktop, I've managed to find the motivation to upload. The music is Boards of Canada - 'Sir Prancealot' and 'Left Side Drive' - (something like that anyway) Maybe the last vid of myself because I've just sold the 24" in need of some money. Although the pattern dictates that I'll be riding again next year some time GETdogmatic Hope you enjoy...

I enjoyed that. Both the riding and editing were good. Music seemed to fit. My only gripe is I'm not too keen on watching people ride pallets. For whatever reason I prefer watching street riding. Would be good to see you do a video of that methinks Anyway, good effort

Those of you that remember Jon Granger may recognise a strong similarity between him and the latest Dr Who. Even their mannerisms are similar. 'tis most amusing.

Very entertaining and minted riding. Good job

Very impressive riding

That was damn impressive. Good work

I think I could attend for one last ride on me 24"

'The Thin Red Line' is my favourite war film. Additionally, I highly recommend the book which I enjoyed even more. The two new second world war films by Clint Eastwood I also enjoyed. 'Letters from Iwo Jima' and 'Flags of Our Fathers' adopt a vantage point from both sides of the battle for each film respectively. All three films are very poignant, at least through my eyes. The intent seems to emphasise the effects of war on soldiers rather than war as a thing for action-enjoyment. I prefer them for that because I think war as some sort of glory or cool thing is a bit silly. Not that I don't enjoy watching a 'silly' action war move though