Not a big deal to most, I guess but I actually got out there and ran 8 miles in
-2 weather. A major accomplishment for me because I've always been a cold
weather wimp and since last year have, for once, been sticking to my goals.

From:	myusenetmail at email.com
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	23 Jan 2005 10:28:30 -0800

It seems to me that getting started is the hardest part (isn't it
always?) I mean, I've put in some pretty cold runs so far this season
and I don't think I've ever been cold once I was 10 minutes or so into
a run. In fact, once I'm into the groove I find the cold weather
exhilarating.

From:	Len A.
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:40:29 -0500

I feel your pain.
Not 2 below but not far above zero here in Massachusetts.
Hey can I ask a question... do you get any people shaking their heads in
disbelief when they see you running in this weather?

Len

From:	Tatmanmj
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	21 Jan 2005 23:16:36 GMT

Not this morning, I didn't see a single other person out there! No cars, no
nothing. Sometimes though people do look at you like you're a real freak when
it's cold and I'm running. Of course I could just be a freak.

Mike

From:	Newsdude
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:27:17 -0600

Heh. -2, eh? Wow. And I thought I was cool for getting out and running at 6
degrees Friday morning...

tatmanmj@aol.com (Tatmanmj) wrote in
news:20050121181636.09522.00000114@mb-m26.aol.com:

> Not this morning, I didn't see a single other person out there! No
> cars, no nothing. Sometimes though people do look at you like you're
> a real freak when it's cold and I'm running. Of course I could just
> be a freak.
>
> Mike
>

From:	SwStudio
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:45:52 -0500

"Newsdude" wrote in message
news:Xns95E6ECFCC7C4lousyconnectioncom@216.196.97.136...
> Heh. -2, eh? Wow. And I thought I was cool for getting out and running at
> 6
> degrees Friday morning...
>

It was -10F yesterday morning at 9am here. The windchill was -27F,
but warmed up to -18F by midday.

It's winter, so that's pretty normal. I wish I lived in a climate where
temps slightly below 0F were cause for suprise and eyebrow-raising!

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

From:	Newsdude
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:38:12 -0600

Yeah. I'm in the Detroit area and we get cold, but not quite as cold as you
Ontarians.

"SwStudio" wrote in
news:dOsId.862$xV2.273753@read2.cgocable.net:

> It was -10F yesterday morning at 9am here. The windchill was -27F,
> but warmed up to -18F by midday.
>
> It's winter, so that's pretty normal. I wish I lived in a climate
> where temps slightly below 0F were cause for suprise and
> eyebrow-raising!
>
> cheers,

From:	SwStudio
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:50:20 -0500

> "SwStudio" wrote
>> It was -10F yesterday morning at 9am here. The windchill was -27F,
>> but warmed up to -18F by midday.
>>
>> It's winter, so that's pretty normal. I wish I lived in a climate
>> where temps slightly below 0F were cause for suprise and
>> eyebrow-raising!
>>
>> cheers,
>
"Newsdude" wrote in message
> Yeah. I'm in the Detroit area and we get cold, but not quite as cold as
> you
> Ontarians.

I think we are in for a serious snowstorm today, too... I
was planning to do an 8km race tomorrow as a sort of
tune-up to see how the training's going (for the ATB30k
in March), but I think we're getting hit hard enough that
even the major roads will still have a lot of ice and snow
come race-time.

Maybe I will wear my Yaktrax Pro that I got for Christmas
this year, haha. I'm not sure if they would stay on my feet
while running quite fast, though. Here's what they look like:

http://revelsports.com/yaktrax_Pro.htm

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

From:	Dave Hamilton
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:19:58 -0600

I usually wusse out at zero but shouldn't .. describe what layers you
use for sub zero .. what about high winds and windchill? My problems
gloves and neck

Dave

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:38:12 -0600, Newsdude
wrote:

>Yeah. I'm in the Detroit area and we get cold, but not quite as cold as you
>Ontarians.
>
>"SwStudio" wrote in
>news:dOsId.862$xV2.273753@read2.cgocable.net:
>
>> It was -10F yesterday morning at 9am here. The windchill was -27F,
>> but warmed up to -18F by midday.
>>
>> It's winter, so that's pretty normal. I wish I lived in a climate
>> where temps slightly below 0F were cause for suprise and
>> eyebrow-raising!
>>
>> cheers,

From:	SwStudio
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:11:12 -0500

"Dave Hamilton" wrote in message
news:3865v0l1b5j85ktu5pogmotd1472o3vr48@4ax.com...
>I usually wusse out at zero but shouldn't .. describe what layers you
> use for sub zero .. what about high winds and windchill? My problems
> gloves and neck

Well, there's a few people on here that have a lot of knowledge
with that sort of stuff. I don't consider myself a cold-weather
running expert and don't really follow the science too much -
I've noticed a few things that work for me.

The wind issue is always cancelled out for me if the last layer
is a good windproof shell. Wear glasses to stop the watering
eyes.

For neck, wear a scarf. I have a nice technical fabric one but
I'm sure any old scarf would do, really.

For hands, get the mittens with the little removable finger-tip
part. You know, the kind that folds back when your fingers
get too hot or sweaty. You can regulate body temp pretty
well through venting in this manner.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

From:	Doug Freese
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:08:29 GMT

"SwStudio" wrote in message
news:IjzId.878$vr4.377@read1.cgocable.net...
> "Dave Hamilton" wrote in message
> news:3865v0l1b5j85ktu5pogmotd1472o3vr48@4ax.com...
>>I usually wusse out at zero but shouldn't .. describe what layers you
>> use for sub zero .. what about high winds and windchill? My problems
>> gloves and neck
>
> Well, there's a few people on here that have a lot of knowledge
> with that sort of stuff. I don't consider myself a cold-weather
> running expert and don't really follow the science too much -
> I've noticed a few things that work for me.

Dot probably the onbe that can address the cold better than most.

> The wind issue is always cancelled out for me if the last layer
> is a good windproof shell. Wear glasses to stop the watering
> eyes.
I happen to use Gortex cuz I have it but yup a good shell to block the
wind. I also layer my face with Vaseline.

> For neck, wear a scarf. I have a nice technical fabric one but
> I'm sure any old scarf would do, really.

I also carry a scarf but not to keep my neck warm but to cover my chin
if needed. I didn't need it yesterday.

>
> For hands, get the mittens with the little removable finger-tip
> part. You know, the kind that folds back when your fingers
> get too hot or sweaty. You can regulate body temp pretty
> well through venting in this manner.

I have a pair of big bulky mittens with a wind breaker surface and I
have not had cold hands ever since I got them.

Time to go out and shovel some of the last 6 inches on snow. Looking
pretty nasty and very windy out there - I'm glad I got my long one in
yesterday before the snow hit. I may pull a Lance today and hide under
my blanket.

-DF

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:20:51 -0700

Doug Freese wrote:
>

> Time to go out and shovel some of the last 6 inches on snow. Looking
> pretty nasty and very windy out there - I'm glad I got my long one in
> yesterday before the snow hit. I may pull a Lance today and hide under
> my blanket.

6 inches, is that all? Well, CNN needs something to
report :) FWIW, sunny and 62 here today (um, for Tim
that's 62F/16.6666667 _celsius_ )

Course I suppose it all depends on what (or who)
you have under the blanket ;)

From:	Dot
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:12:32 GMT

Doug Freese wrote:

> "SwStudio" wrote in message
> news:IjzId.878$vr4.377@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>>"Dave Hamilton" wrote in message
>>news:3865v0l1b5j85ktu5pogmotd1472o3vr48@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I usually wusse out at zero but shouldn't .. describe what layers you
>>>use for sub zero .. what about high winds and windchill? My problems
>>>gloves and neck
>>
>>Well, there's a few people on here that have a lot of knowledge
>>with that sort of stuff. I don't consider myself a cold-weather
>>running expert and don't really follow the science too much -
>>I've noticed a few things that work for me.
>
>
> Dot probably the onbe that can address the cold better than most.
>

Right - in a t-shirt :(

Oh, you said "cold", I thought you said "Alaska winter". ;)
(While I did run in a short-sleeve t-shirt for about 15-20 min today,
long sleeves would've been better, but it was t-shirt or lt weight
stretch fleece. I had already hiked for a little over an hour up/down
part of Lazy Mtn, during which I was sure all skin was covered in case
of wipe out on extended slopes in the snow. I'm taking poles with me
next time. Afterward, I was down running on some flat trails at base and
decided the layer had to go. It was about 30+F.)

To answer the question seriously.
Everyone's different and it probably depends on cold adaptation. I
always wear a short-sleeve synthetic t-shirt as bottommost layer.
I may use a powerdry (REI) (or similar synthetic) long-sleeve shirt down
to freezing or thereabouts. I've got a light weight stretch-fleece that
I use down to 0F. If there's any breeze or if it's dark (no warming
solar radiation), I may use long sleeve base layer underneath. That's as
cold as I've been able to test since I've had these new layers, but when
it gets to maybe -10F or colder, I may need to add another layer or use
a heavier one (Sporthill catalyst) - or whatever 2nd insulating layer
you may have. I think that may take me down to -20F, probably lower with
a shell - but I haven't had a chance to test.

Legs use sporthill xc pants, usually with powerdry base layer
(valhalla). Subzero F or winds, I may use a slightly heavier synthetic
tights (sierra designs). I have windpants that I take for emergencies,
but I rarely use them initially since they've been too warm, even with a
wind blowing. I'm most likely to use them when snowshoe running in fresh
snow because the snow kicks up my back - or some adventure where I may
end up in the snow - face plant or sliding down hillside.

General tips:
Use synthetics, wool, or silk (I don't have much experience with silk) -
not cotton.
If you layer, try to have your outer layers larger so they don't bind.
Stretchy fabrics allow more motion so you don't get the Michelin man
look / feeling. This usually isn't stretchy like tights, but just enough
stretch to allow motion around joints.
Be sure not to layer too tightly or this will restrict circulation.

Some people like clothes that have mesh on back or windproof / resistant
only on front or more breathable fabrics on under arms. Where I am, it's
not unusual to have 20 mph or stronger winds - from multiple directions,
as I follow a twisty trail or go out/back or the wind direction changes.
I really hate those leakages, but they're fine on a calm day.

I prefer to use breathable base / insulating layers and a separate
windshell that is windproof (pertex is one such lightweight fabric that
I'm testing now - shell is 3.5 oz advertised). This gives me more
options than a single combined garment for about the same weight. I
generally don't use gore-tex cuz it's too bulky and a real pain if I
have to peel it. My outer shell (water resistant, at best, I think, but
not tested) is windproof. Test in store by holding single layer of
fabric to your mouth and trying to blow through it from outside in.
(REI salesperson taught me this trick - you'll quickly see the
difference between windproof and windresistant materials.)

I like decent hoods on my shells that come up around chin, preferably up
higher, so I can seal myself in during some of the windier days (been
known to use goggles on the 50mph days with debris flying through air).
I rarely wear hoods, but find them life-savers when conditions are right.

Pockets are another issue for personal preference, whether you need to
hold snacks, peeled layers (hat, mittens), light, maps, etc.

Headgear - neoprene earband, synthetic watch cap, or balaclava -
sometimes pulling balaclava over mouth when subzero F. You lose about
40% of heat through head and neck - easy place to add/subtract layers
for temperature regulation. That's why I like the hoods to seal in the
heat if needed.

Things that may affect what works for you (besides basic physiology and
effort levels): temperature, wind, humidity, dark/light. You'd be
surprised how warm a blazing sun on fresh, bright snow can make a day
feel, even if it's near 10F / -12C. Similarly when the sun drops below
the horizon, it feels much chillier (faster than it affects air
temperature). Temperature is only part of the story.

I've just tried to provide some suggestions. Everyone really is
different (read Armstrong's chapter on cold in his book Performing in
Extreme Environments if you don't believe me), and there really isn't
one solution that works for all - or even the same person under
seemingly similar conditions on different day. You'll have to experiment
and see what works for you.

While there's some nice techie gear out there, there's no real need to
start with that until you know what you need. I tend to buy from outdoor
stores since that gear is usually designed for people out in the cold
for many hours, possibly in remote locations, which resembles my needs.

I've gotten some of my starting layers on closeouts at
www.campmor.com (duofold has worked well)
www.sierratradingpost.com (high quality gear with substantial closeout
sales if you can find what you want - I started with duofold and rei,
then watched here and elsewhere for improvements)
www.rei.com
http://www.mec.ca/index.html (I haven't bought anything here, but many
here have)

I've even gotten gear at Wal-Mart, although it's usually summer gear.
>
>
>>The wind issue is always cancelled out for me if the last layer
>>is a good windproof shell. Wear glasses to stop the watering
>>eyes.
>
> I happen to use Gortex

I've worked my way down from Gortex jacket weighing close to a couple
pounds to a 3.5 oz shell. Doesn't have the warmth of Goretex, but I'm
finding I prefer insulation and shell separate. Doesn't have all the
goodies (fuller hood, more pockets) of my 11 oz shell, but it seems to
be earning it's place in my collection.

cuz I have it but yup a good shell to block the
> wind. I also layer my face with Vaseline.
>

I'll use vaseline many days, but I've found days when I need more than
that. I started out the other night with vaseline and a shell with hood.
I hadn't gone about 100 m when I decided to head back to car and get
balaclava. I used that off and on over mouth the entire run - just too
cool around face without it. Thermometer said about 0F, but other
thermometers were closer to -10F and it felt calm. I've run several
daytime runs at 0F with out balaclava. Not sure if humidity or what.

>
>>For neck, wear a scarf. I have a nice technical fabric one but
>>I'm sure any old scarf would do, really.
>
>
> I also carry a scarf but not to keep my neck warm but to cover my chin
> if needed. I didn't need it yesterday.
>
balaclava, although I've used scarf in past
>

>>For hands, get the mittens with the little removable finger-tip
>>part. You know, the kind that folds back when your fingers
>>get too hot or sweaty. You can regulate body temp pretty
>>well through venting in this manner.
>
>
> I have a pair of big bulky mittens with a wind breaker surface and I
> have not had cold hands ever since I got them.

I just use my child-size snow mittens ;)

Actually, I found a couple pairs of reasonably priced ($15, $10, iirc)
windproof mittens this fall - adult size, both men's and women's - in
local outdoor stores. But it hasn't been cold yet to use them. (I have
no idea how to judge mitten sizes so am only comfortable trying them on
to be sure I can get in them and they're not too bulky.)

>
> Time to go out and shovel some of the last 6 inches on snow. Looking
> pretty nasty and very windy out there - I'm glad I got my long one in
> yesterday before the snow hit. I may pull a Lance today and hide under
> my blanket.
>

Geez, what a waste of good snow ;)

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)

From:	Brian Baresch
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:44 GMT

>I feel your pain.
>Not 2 below but not far above zero here in Massachusetts.
>Hey can I ask a question... do you get any people shaking their heads in
>disbelief when they see you running in this weather?

I've only had one real cold-weather run this year, when I was visiting
friends in Kansas City (I'm in Texas most of the time). I ran 16 miles
when it was in the low teens F. I was mostly on a bike/jog path so the
only people I saw were other runners -- and there were some.
Supportive atmosphere!

--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading

If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill

From:	Leo Reed
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:31:23 GMT

Tatmanmj wrote:
> Not a big deal to most, I guess but I actually got out there and ran 8 miles in
> -2 weather. A major accomplishment for me because I've always been a cold
> weather wimp and since last year have, for once, been sticking to my goals.

Starting my third week of not running and would give anything
to get out and plod through some of the cold and snow.

Another 3 weeks or so, till I can rejoin the living.

From:	ultrajohn1 at webtv.net
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:29:37 -0800

70's in the oc

From:	Twittering One
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	22 Jan 2005 16:41:39 GMT

~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * With one or two things added
To relieve the bareness of the wall.
A photographic
Parody of little distraction of well-defined
Creations of pictures themselves. Relying
No doubt on the fact.

And so
It was the subject, moreover, through activity,
That opposed positions in play
Were clearly
Belying the facts.

~ * ~

* PANS
Peculiar and Novel Services *

~ Ringy
Ding a ling ~

Allo?
Yes, um hm. Yes, I require your
Services. Please. How much?

“Response being prepared. .... Takes time.
.... being driven ragged
‘attending’ to threads.
....want to finish what I started before I
begin ‘anew’ with you. Be back to you then.

Fly away for now”
~ R.

Seen that forest rat?

“It’s raining, the sky is grey
And snow is expected this weekend.”
~ Vashti

~ Slovenly
Slapped something
Off
Course ~ Of
Course!

Hell’s helpers
....help,
Does wonders for mind and body,
As well as soul.
All told,
A hand to hold,
Too,
Matters.
We all make mistakes;
Revision and course correction
Open the heart of the story.
Go Mama!

What’s the clause,
…and on what silly cause?
Candid capered-male,
Or merely minnows swimming,
Or a pitter-pat doggie pause?

Wait, hold that thought.
…echoes haunt, listen…

Hark!

I’m on the hunt ~
…a predator’s after me,
I’m prey. I pray, I’m looking for dog paws. Indeed,
Someone’s aprowl
For me. Just howwwwwllllllll ~

I’m just a night
Owl in flight....

~ Candid capered-male ~

“Flying through the night
Spreading Tesla’s knowledge
And setting wrongs to right!
Ha! Ha!”
~ Double-A

O dear. My candles’
…burning both ends of my tail.
Taper my pursuit? Or
Just a sneaky caper?

Inner light, burning bright,
…moon’s shining light.
And you dear mother,
Have aptly foiled my tale for me.

My blessing shines, now I search,
…soothe, my hunger for you.
Thank you.

“Etherized I think in every direction
But can’t figure out the direction
You are coming from. You are very far out.”
~ Bert

Etherized, or Twittering One, or Lettersnow,
Oui, c’est moi.”
~ Moi

“Do those first five
Letters that spell ‘ether,’ are they meant
To be a clue?”
~ Bert

“Oui.”
~ Moi

“You sound like
An alien who’s been traveling alone in space
Too long, and might have
Been deprived of oxygen too long.”
~ Bert

“Oui.”
~ Moi

“If you are an alien, try not to learn
About us by watching TV.”
~ Bert

“Own no Tv.”
~ Moi

“Walk the streets of NY city and see
How real people live.”
~ Bert

“Oui, Bert, I do.”
~ Moi

“Your spacetime is +5.
What location is that? P.S. You can buy pure oxygen
Tanks cheap,
And my advice would be take deep
Breaths.”
~ Bert

“Gulp. Will do.
So, alas, like, +5, you say?
Don’t know how that translates ~
But alas, this IS my vacation,
Or rather my work.
‘Do what you ought, come what may.’”
~ Moi

“Vacation?
You mean you will soon be ripped from your nightly haunts
And sent
back to the bookbindery?”
~ Double-A

“Looks [soundings] that way.
[Peers ab[(r)out](e), (at)tentively]
Hey, but what the hay [Hey!]?!
My book b[l]inds me for all
Time [just a r[y]h(me)].
But alas, these nightly h[ope]aunt[s] ~

Begin only now.
[Hush ~ don’t tell!
Big Secret!]
Escap[e]ade
Makes lemonade.
Cheers!******
Stars in
Your eyes,
Too ~

“Somewhere
everyone is

Before the advent
of the virtual
there was only real
and
one could hear

today
one cannot

the deranged
now mumble
to themselves
via computer

there is no street to cross to
avoid

them

one can
no longer retain
an image

the virtual identity
changes
along with
the song of
the unseen
demons in their minds”
~ chuck in Persia

“Persia is fine, too.
Nice poem, Chuck. Honest.

…the excavation flights of fancy can begin…

Fly high,
fly safe...

“Its a piece of cake!”

Yes, m’am.
Indeed.
Can I eat it, too?

“I wonder what it would be like to open
A Bud Lite in a hard vacuum?
I’ll bet it would be a real gusher!
Drinking it in a hard vacuum would be a trick too!”
~ Double-A

“What’s a soft vacuum?
[p.s. I need some buds, Mum]”
~ Moi

“A soft vacuum?
Your Hoover.”
~ Double-A

“Close enough for all that Jazzzzzzz,
Yes?”
~ Moi

“Catapult, eh?
Not a bad idea...a medieval catapult.

....somersault in air...
elegant trapeze...

“I bet it’d be easy to build
A landing bag to make this plausible.”

*
....just swim into the pool of knowledge,
make a splish splash!...

“(fission energy)”
~ Bert

Frisson, oui?

“The ‘chain’ will never allow it.”

O, a pendant possibility ~
Or just a New York Ride. A cul de sac
Suspended en l’air ~ Mum’s
The World. All abide.

Now, come,
Let’s make fun!

Here, have some…
The work’s getting done.
Been there, done that, doing this ~
Here, care for a lovely hors d’ouevre?
It’s Mum’s new oeuvre.
[I helped, too.]
Now, go find some klews for the news...

“confusing levels of discourse is not being logical
especially when you dont even realize the different levels”
~ arf meow arf

*Snap*

“Especially when you don’t even realize the different levels.”
~ arf meow arf

Is the multiplex disco open yet?
*What to wear. O woe*

arf meow arf

Is the multiplex disco open yet?
*What to wear. O woe*
*Snap!

*

O look!
I’m suspended in mid-air!

*

“’Stimulants’ help me to grow, remember, develop,
evolve. ....I shall
enthusiastically poison and addle my mind
for ‘this’ cause.,
thank you.
.... It beats ‘GroundHog Day’ to all shit!”
~ Raving

So alas, Raving, why are you not currently on stimulating
Medication? Perhaps, on
Vacation? Or, you, just an adled
Adler roving about? So, alas, why?
And further, to what end? Also, are you of the fortunate ~
Do you possess health insurance coverage?
Do you have a bank account?
Have you anything deposited therein?
In this chilly weather, alas, I do hope
Your heating bill's all paid up!

Stay warm
Stay wise.

And don’t forget to realize ~
A body’s a body first, or at least, here
Where I live. Where fly
You?”
~ Moi

*
_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows.
But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo

From:	Tim Downie
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:45:21 -0000

Tatmanmj wrote:
> Not a big deal to most, I guess but I actually got out there and ran
> 8 miles in -2 weather.

F or C?

rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if C, rather
less so. ;-)

Tim

From:	paul at atom.sbrk.co.uk
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	22 Jan 2005 17:51:11 GMT

In article <35fhpgF4h499dU1@individual.net>, Tim Downie wrote:
> Tatmanmj wrote:
>> Not a big deal to most, I guess but I actually got out there and ran
>> 8 miles in -2 weather.

> F or C?

> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if C, rather
> less so. ;-)

K. Impressed? :)

Paul

From:	Tatmanmj
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	23 Jan 2005 14:36:26 GMT

>> F or C?
>
>> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if C, rather
>
>> less so. ;-)

F, not C!

Mike

From:	Tim Downie
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:43:31 -0000

Tatmanmj wrote:
>>> F or C?
>>
>>> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if
>>> C, rather
>>
>>> less so. ;-)
>
> F, not C!
>

Okay, I'm impressed then. ;-)

For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not everyone uses
your archaic units.

Tim

From:	Phil M.
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:09:36 GMT

Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk of 23 Jan 2005:

> Tatmanmj wrote:
>>>> F or C?
>>>
>>>> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if
>>>> C, rather
>>>
>>>> less so. ;-)
>>
>> F, not C!
>>
>
> Okay, I'm impressed then. ;-)
>
> For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not everyone
> uses your archaic units.

Archaic indeed! I remember learning the metric system in grade school (mid
60s). At that time there was a big push to go metric. I guess the powers
that be decided they didn't want to go through the pain of converting.
Those people are problably long gone now. If we had converted then
everything be much easier now.

Phil M.

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:05:47 -0700

"Phil M." wrote:
>
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
> timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk of 23 Jan 2005:
>
> > Tatmanmj wrote:
> >>>> F or C?
> >>>
> >>>> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if
> >>>> C, rather

Actually, Tim, this is not a uk.rec newsgroup (I can
by the majority of idioms...), so I guess you'll have
to remember there's lots of backward yanks here :)

> >>>> less so. ;-)
> >>
> >> F, not C!
> >>
> >
> > Okay, I'm impressed then. ;-)
> >
> > For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not everyone
> > uses your archaic units.

Yes but remember it was you English who set our
measurement standards according to the length of
your king's foot (which leads me to wonder which
foot they chose, since most people have one foot
longer than the other...) Still I know plenty of
brits who still use fahrenheit, inches, and feet
(British Imperial.) Neither is unscientific nor
archaic, simply a matter of preferred prejudice
(i.e., there's no mathematical or scientific
logic to standard measurements; only what the
government considers "official.") The fahrenheit
scale is named for Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit,
German physicist who invented the mercury
thermometer in 1714. Celsius was named after his
_contemporary_, Anders Celsius, Swedish astronomer
who devised the centigrade thermometer in 1742.
Archaic, I believe, would apply to babylonian, not
modern measures and scales.

Using your preferred C I wouldn't be impressed by a
-2 cold temp either, or vice versa: the abstraction
that 30 degrees C is "hot" weather seems similarly
absurd and illogical to me ;) Fahrenheit is in fact
a much more _precise_ measure of temperature
differentiation due to it's finer scale (1 unit =
1/180 of the difference between freezing and boiling
points at standard pressure vs. 1 unit = 1/100 for
the same difference using celsius.) Same goes for
feet vs. meters.

Having differentiated that, I think I'll wear shorts
on my run today since it's a currently warm 53F --
in your temp terminology that's 11.666667 degrees C.
precisely :)

> Archaic indeed! I remember learning the metric system in grade school (mid
> 60s). At that time there was a big push to go metric. I guess the powers
> that be decided they didn't want to go through the pain of converting.
> Those people are problably long gone now. If we had converted then
> everything be much easier now.

uh umm..easier than what? doing away with customary
and practical measures like "foot"? Feet and inches
seem as easy and logical to me as meters and centimeters.
I mean, how logical is it to define a unit of measure
(the meter) by measuring the distance traveled by light
in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458ths of a second? (someone
get my stop watch and micrometer ;) )

I think the ol' king's foot method is a bit less arcane
and a bit more pragmatic...

From:	SwStudio
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:32:36 -0500

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
> "Phil M." wrote:
>> Archaic indeed! I remember learning the metric system in grade school
>> (mid
>> 60s). At that time there was a big push to go metric. I guess the powers
>> that be decided they didn't want to go through the pain of converting.
>> Those people are problably long gone now. If we had converted then
>> everything be much easier now.
>
> uh umm..easier than what? doing away with customary
> and practical measures like "foot"?

No, metric is easier because everything is based in multiples
of ten. It's always a matter of moving a decimal around. Little
kids understand how it works right away :

1000 metres = 1 km
10 mm = 1 cm
1 km = 100,000 cm
1 litre = 1000 ml

However, your 'easy' system involves remembering things like:

1 mile = 1760 yards
1 mile = 5280 feet
1 yard = 36 inches
1 gallon = 128 ounces

And that's not even getting into all these fractions of an inch
when things get a little small! The metric sytem is simply way
better. The problem is familiarity, not superiority. I don't blame
you for wanting to stick with the imperial system. It takes a
while to learn and becomes ingrained.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:56:28 -0700

SwStudio wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" wrote in message
> > "Phil M." wrote:
> >> Archaic indeed! I remember learning the metric system in grade school
> >> (mid
> >> 60s). At that time there was a big push to go metric. I guess the powers
> >> that be decided they didn't want to go through the pain of converting.
> >> Those people are problably long gone now. If we had converted then
> >> everything be much easier now.
> >
> > uh umm..easier than what? doing away with customary
> > and practical measures like "foot"?
>
> No, metric is easier because everything is based in multiples
> of ten. It's always a matter of moving a decimal around. Little
> kids understand how it works right away :

Yes, I know how metric works. I use it everyday :)
It's not easier or more pragmatic, just different.
Like someone else said, conversion is a way of life
and not a big deal. The only people I hear complaining
about it are the metric-only proponents or those who
aren't taught conversions.

An example is topographical maps simply would be
useless for navigating steep terrain if contours
were in meters. A major fault of the metric system
is it has no pragmatic measure relative to typical
useful human reference, like feet and inches.

I typically deal in fractions of inches and fractions
of meters. Same difference...

> 1000 metres = 1 km
> 10 mm = 1 cm
> 1 km = 100,000 cm
> 1 litre = 1000 ml
>
> However, your 'easy' system involves remembering things like:
>
> 1 mile = 1760 yards
> 1 mile = 5280 feet
> 1 yard = 36 inches
> 1 gallon = 128 ounces
>
> And that's not even getting into all these fractions of an inch
> when things get a little small! The metric sytem is simply way
> better. The problem is familiarity, not superiority. I don't blame
> you for wanting to stick with the imperial system. It takes a
> while to learn and becomes ingrained.
>
> cheers,
> --
> David (in Hamilton, ON)
> www.allfalldown.org
> www.absolutelyaccurate.com

From:	Tim Downie
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:17:20 -0000

Tom Phillips wrote:
> "Phil M." wrote:
>>>
>>> For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not
>>> everyone uses your archaic units.
>
> Yes but remember it was you English who set our
> measurement standards according to the length of
> your king's foot (which leads me to wonder which
> foot they chose, since most people have one foot
> longer than the other...) Still I know plenty of
> brits who still use fahrenheit, inches, and feet
> (British Imperial.) Neither is unscientific nor
> archaic, simply a matter of preferred prejudice

You're rather missing my point. Rather than quibble about the relative
merits of any particular unit, I was trying to point out that one shouldn't
*assume* that everyone else on usenet knows what units you're using.

All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.

Tim

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:44:23 -0700

Tim Downie wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > "Phil M." wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not
> >>> everyone uses your archaic units.
> >
> > Yes but remember it was you English who set our
> > measurement standards according to the length of
> > your king's foot (which leads me to wonder which
> > foot they chose, since most people have one foot
> > longer than the other...) Still I know plenty of
> > brits who still use fahrenheit, inches, and feet
> > (British Imperial.) Neither is unscientific nor
> > archaic, simply a matter of preferred prejudice
>
> You're rather missing my point. Rather than quibble about the relative
> merits of any particular unit,

Not quibbling. Pointing out facts.

>I was trying to point out that one shouldn't
> *assume* that everyone else on usenet knows what units you're using.
>
> All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.

I don't think I missed your point. You asserted
fahrenheit was archaic and of US origin, which
is incorrect on both counts. But as everyone on
this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...

From:	Tim Downie
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:22:37 -0000

Tom Phillips wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>> Tom Phillips wrote:

>> All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.
>
> I don't think I missed your point. You asserted
> fahrenheit was archaic and of US origin, which
> is incorrect on both counts.

Okay, I'm not going to argue about that. In fact, I'm personally more
comfortable with fahrenheit for ambient temperature measurement (as are a
lot of brits). I should perhaps have added a smiley as that was the spirit
with which the comment was made.

> But as everyone on
> this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
> anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
> no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
> scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...

Now that I will argue with. That is an incredibly arrogant US-centric
assumption. Quite breathtaking really. I never assume that the group should
pander to a UK viewpoint and nor should US posters assume that the whole
world accepts that rec.running is really us.rec.running.

Tim

From:	TheLongestYard
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:49:54 -0500

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
news:35ibrhF4nudgiU1@individual.net...
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> Tim Downie wrote:
>>>
>>> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
>>> All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.
>>
>> I don't think I missed your point. You asserted
>> fahrenheit was archaic and of US origin, which
>> is incorrect on both counts.
>
> Okay, I'm not going to argue about that. In fact, I'm personally more
> comfortable with fahrenheit for ambient temperature measurement (as are a
> lot of brits). I should perhaps have added a smiley as that was the
> spirit with which the comment was made.
>
>> But as everyone on
>> this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
>> anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
>> no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
>> scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...
>
> Now that I will argue with. That is an incredibly arrogant US-centric
> assumption. Quite breathtaking really. I never assume that the group
> should pander to a UK viewpoint and nor should US posters assume that the
> whole world accepts that rec.running is really us.rec.running.
>

now you've lost me. if it isnt specifically some OTHER country then it MUST
be the USofA....right? as the great USofA group, Queen, once sang, "WE ARE
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD". The sooner that is accepted the quicker we'll
get along better. as our fearless leader, George F'ing "W" Bush might point
out here...we'll have multiple-partisanshipmanship here as soon as you start
not disagreeing with us...

> Tim
>

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:05:15 -0700

TheLongestYard wrote:
>
> "Tim Downie" wrote in message
> news:35ibrhF4nudgiU1@individual.net...
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >> Tim Downie wrote
> >
> >> But as everyone on
> >> this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
> >> anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
> >> no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
> >> scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...
> >
> > Now that I will argue with. That is an incredibly arrogant US-centric
> > assumption. Quite breathtaking really. I never assume that the group
> > should pander to a UK viewpoint and nor should US posters assume that the
> > whole world accepts that rec.running is really us.rec.running.
> >
>
> now you've lost me. if it isnt specifically some OTHER country then it MUST
> be the USofA....right?

Paraphrased from USENET FAQs:
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/usenet.html

Usenet originated in the United States; the fastest growth in
Usenet sites has been in the U.S. However, Usenet extends
worldwide.

The heaviest concentrations of Usenet sites outside the U.S. seem
to be in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan.

A 1991 analysis of the top 1000 Usenet sites showed about 58% US
sites, 15% unknown, 8% Germany, 6% Canada, 2-3% each the UK,
Japan, and Australia, and the rest mostly scattered around
Europe.

The state of California was the center of the net, with about 14%
of the mapped top sites there. The Washington, DC area was also
the center of the net, with several large providers headquartered
there. You could read netnews on all seven continents, including
Antarctica.

If you were looking for a somewhat less US-centered view of the
world, you can try reading regional newsgroups (which depending
on where you are could be Japanese, German, Canadian, or Australian).
There are a lot of people out there who were different from you.

Regional Newsgroups

Australia - aus.* hierarchy

Austria - at.* hierarchy

Belgium - be.* hierarchy

German - de.* hierarchy

Spain - es.* hierarchy

French - fr.* hierarchy

Italy - it.* hierarchy

Switzerland - ch.* hierarchy

Netherlands - nl.* hierarchy

New Zealand - nz.* hierarchy

Poland - pl.* hierarchy

Finland - sfnet.* hierarchy

United Kingdom - uk.* hierarchy

USA - us.* hierarchy

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:02:19 -0700

Tim Downie wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > Tim Downie wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >> All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.
> >
> > I don't think I missed your point. You asserted
> > fahrenheit was archaic and of US origin, which
> > is incorrect on both counts.
>
> Okay, I'm not going to argue about that. In fact, I'm personally more
> comfortable with fahrenheit for ambient temperature measurement (as are a
> lot of brits). I should perhaps have added a smiley as that was the spirit
> with which the comment was made.

I assumed your F proficiency as such; most discussion
here is tongue in cheek.

> > But as everyone on
> > this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
> > anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
> > no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
> > scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...
>
> Now that I will argue with. That is an incredibly arrogant US-centric
> assumption.

Somewhat overstated, I think. Much of the world
speaks/learns english. This is not arrognace, simply
a fact. In fact, if one wants to talk arrogance (and
why the world speaks english), one only needs mention
the British Empire :) So when posting to an english
speaking nsg one likely assumes the associated customary
meanings and measures, same as I would if posting to
french or arab nsg (whatever measures arab runners use,
that is...) And as you pointed out, most British also
use fahrenheit.

I've been posting/reading here on off for a few years.
In my experience there are fewer posters of international
origin (via headers) than US. Could be wrong, but those
that aren't still don't seem to suffer from self
translation...

> Quite breathtaking really. I never assume that the group should
> pander to a UK viewpoint and nor should US posters assume that the whole
> world accepts that rec.running is really us.rec.running.

Perhaps what's breathtaking (a British idiom, I assume,
you use for extensiveness in the scope of my comments)
is the _assumption_ that rec.running is so internationally
ignorant of anything outside of metric and celsius one
one needs to always differentiate. Mostly I do, but that's
becasue I routinely use both systems. But if I said it was
65 degrees when I ran today, you can be sure it doesn't
refer to 65C :)

From:	Tim Downie
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:29:23 -0000

Tom Phillips wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>>> But as everyone on
>>> this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
>>> anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's
>>> no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
>>> scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...
>>
>> Now that I will argue with. That is an incredibly arrogant
>> US-centric assumption.
>
> Somewhat overstated, I think. Much of the world
> speaks/learns english.

True

> This is not arrognace, simply
> a fact. In fact, if one wants to talk arrogance (and
> why the world speaks english), one only needs mention
> the British Empire :) So when posting to an english
> speaking nsg one likely assumes the associated customary
> meanings and measures, same as I would if posting to
> french or arab nsg (whatever measures arab runners use,
> that is...) And as you pointed out, most British also
> use fahrenheit.

*Also* use fahrenheit. We don't assume however that any quoted temperature
is automatically fahrenheit if the units aren't stated.

>
> I've been posting/reading here on off for a few years.
> In my experience there are fewer posters of international
> origin (via headers) than US.

True but that doesn't make it a US group and posters shouldn't assume that
readers will automatically know what units the poster is using. Most of the
time it doesn't matter, the context or the magnitude makes it clear.
However when talking about temperatures at the lower end of the
Fahrenheit/Celsius scale it *does* matter as it can be much more ambiguous.

At -40 I'll let you off however. ;-)

> Could be wrong, but those
> that aren't still don't seem to suffer from self
> translation...
>
>> Quite breathtaking really. I never assume that the group should
>> pander to a UK viewpoint and nor should US posters assume that the
>> whole world accepts that rec.running is really us.rec.running.
>
> Perhaps what's breathtaking (a British idiom, I assume,
> you use for extensiveness in the scope of my comments)
> is the _assumption_ that rec.running is so internationally
> ignorant of anything outside of metric and Celsius one
> one needs to always differentiate. Mostly I do, but that's
> becasue I routinely use both systems. But if I said it was
> 65 degrees when I ran today, you can be sure it doesn't
> refer to 65C :)

As a mention above, usually context or magnitude make clarification
unnecessary but *not always*.

When I went running yesterday, it was -4. Unless you know where I live you
can't put that in context. I wouldn't think of mentioning the temperature
without giving you the units to put it in context. Because I recognise that
this is a *world* group, I won't make assumptions about your knowledge of
where I live or what units I'm using so as a courtesy I'll tell you that it
was -4C.

Is it so hard for Americans to extend the same courtesy to the rest of the
world?

Tim

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:53:45 -0700

Tim Downie wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > And as you pointed out, most British also
> > use fahrenheit.
>
> *Also* use fahrenheit. We don't assume however that any quoted temperature
> is automatically fahrenheit if the units aren't stated.

All US weather temps are also reported in
both F and C.

> > I've been posting/reading here on off for a few years.
> > In my experience there are fewer posters of international
> > origin (via headers) than US.
>
> True but that doesn't make it a US group and posters shouldn't assume that
> readers will automatically know what units the poster is using. Most of the
> time it doesn't matter, the context or the magnitude makes it clear.
> However when talking about temperatures at the lower end of the
> Fahrenheit/Celsius scale it *does* matter as it can be much more ambiguous.
>
> At -40 I'll let you off however. ;-)

C or F? ;^) (yes I know they're equal)

> As a mention above, usually context or magnitude make clarification
> unnecessary but *not always*.
>
> When I went running yesterday, it was -4. Unless you know where I live you
> can't put that in context.

But your header says yahoo.co.uk...

> I wouldn't think of mentioning the temperature
> without giving you the units to put it in context. Because I recognise that
> this is a *world* group, I won't make assumptions about your knowledge of
> where I live or what units I'm using so as a courtesy I'll tell you that it
> was -4C.
>
> Is it so hard for Americans to extend the same courtesy to the rest of the
> world?

I think you already asked the OP.

From:	TheLongestYard
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:05:07 -0500

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
news:41F402B8.647C219C@aol.com...
> Somewhat overstated, I think. Much of the world
> speaks/learns english. This is not arrognace, simply
> a fact. In fact, if one wants to talk arrogance (and
> why the world speaks english), one only needs mention
> the British Empire :) So when posting to an english
> speaking nsg one likely assumes the associated customary
> meanings and measures, same as I would if posting to
> french or arab nsg (whatever measures arab runners use,

checkpoints? Land mines?

> that is...) And as you pointed out, most British also
> use fahrenheit.

From:	TheLongestYard
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:58:44 -0500

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
news:41F3F079.8582CDE5@aol.com...
>
>
> Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> > "Phil M." wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not
>> >>> everyone uses your archaic units.
>> >
>> > Yes but remember it was you English who set our
>> > measurement standards according to the length of
>> > your king's foot (which leads me to wonder which
>> > foot they chose, since most people have one foot
>> > longer than the other...) Still I know plenty of
>> > brits who still use fahrenheit, inches, and feet
>> > (British Imperial.) Neither is unscientific nor
>> > archaic, simply a matter of preferred prejudice
>>
>> You're rather missing my point. Rather than quibble about the relative
>> merits of any particular unit,
>
> Not quibbling. Pointing out facts.
>
>>I was trying to point out that one shouldn't
>> *assume* that everyone else on usenet knows what units you're using.
>>
>> All it takes is an F or a C to make things clear.
>
> I don't think I missed your point. You asserted
> fahrenheit was archaic and of US origin, which
> is incorrect on both counts. But as everyone on
> this nsg posts in english (well, for the most part,
> anyway: some troll gibberish applies) and there's

as the dutch would say "Engeland is bevolkt met licht betaalde mensen"

> no "uk.rec" in the group name, one logically _assumes_
> scales, measures, and idioms common to the US...

From:	TheLongestYard
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:45:09 -0500

"Phil M." wrote in message
news:Xns95E767C1C7E2Bseilogramp@216.77.188.18...
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
> timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk of 23 Jan 2005:
>
>> Tatmanmj wrote:
>>>>> F or C?
>>>>
>>>>> rec.running isn't an american newsgroup. If F, I'm impressed, if
>>>>> C, rather
>>>>
>>>>> less so. ;-)
>>>
>>> F, not C!
>>>
>>
>> Okay, I'm impressed then. ;-)
>>
>> For other US rec.runners, do please try and remember that not everyone
>> uses your archaic units.
>
> Archaic indeed! I remember learning the metric system in grade school (mid
> 60s). At that time there was a big push to go metric. I guess the powers
> that be decided they didn't want to go through the pain of converting.
> Those people are problably long gone now. If we had converted then
> everything be much easier now.
>

look they signed us onto this imperial system to begin with so why should we
jump on metric just so they can change it on us in a couple hundred years
again? think of all the time we wasted on the dewey decimal system. what a
ripoff!

> Phil M.

From:	Len A.
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:56:59 -0500

As for the long run... yes Sunday is usually my day for 12 + miles.
Somehow I don't think I will be able to with 2 feet of snow in New
England today. Yep, should have done it yesterday.

As for the metric system ...for people who work in labs... conversion
has been a way of life from the time the French thought it up

Len

From:	Tom Phillips
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:14:26 -0700

"Len A." wrote:
>
> As for the long run... yes Sunday is usually my day for 12 + miles.
> Somehow I don't think I will be able to with 2 feet of snow in New
> England today. Yep, should have done it yesterday.

Don't they plow streets in New England?

Heck, when we get 3-4 feet I still run and
CNN doesn't even take notice.

> As for the metric system ...for people who work in labs... conversion
> has been a way of life from the time the French thought it up

The french also thought up the guillotine :)

From:	Tatmanmj
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	23 Jan 2005 01:26:42 GMT

Farenheit! Not Celsius.

Mike

From:	Bethowmuch
Subject:	Re: Below 0 run!
Date:	23 Jan 2005 00:46:08 GMT

Do you really need layered and all that crap? I've run in zero weather in a
gore tex suit with nothing but a t-shirt under it. I've not had any ill
effects yet and actually am quite comfortable.