NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't how well you are aging, but I find that a night on the ground isn't nearly as pleasant at my age, as it was when I was in my twenties, or thirties, or even forties, for that matter. I still camp when I go on fishing trips, but I tend to have a few more comforts -- the lightweight, folding cot is the big luxury I allow.

I actually find I really enjoy sleeping on the ground, as long as there is enough blanket under me to keep me from losing all my body heat. My back feels so much better after a night like that than spent in a regular bed.

I actually find I really enjoy sleeping on the ground, as long as there is enough blanket under me to keep me from losing all my body heat. My back feels so much better after a night like that than spent in a regular bed.
I do all the right things, hollows for my shoulder and hip, pick up the rocks, etc. Yet it seems as soon as I turned fifty, I became a wretched woose. My back doesn't bother me, but every other joint does -- mainly my shoulders. I'd hate to admit to arthritis, so I'll just credit your enjoyment to that aboriginal ancestry.

I do all the right things, hollows for my shoulder and hip, pick up the rocks, etc. Yet it seems as soon as I turned fifty, I became a wretched woose. My back doesn't bother me, but every other joint does -- mainly my shoulders. I'd hate to admit to arthritis, so I'll just credit your enjoyment to that aboriginal ancestry.

Well, I'm still only in my 30s, so it might well be that it's not going to continue to be a nice sleep. I do admit a preference for sleeping on at least a thin layer of spruce boughs, but I find that it doesn't really cut down on the hardness of the ground, just the coldness.

Okay, so, I guess everything is sort of "in nature" in a way, but I mean the comparatively wild nature. And I admit that I'd be taking clothes, tools, some supplies, maybe a sleeping roll, so its not exactly without modern comforts.


What I'm thinking is, before school really gets going, heading out to some national park or something, and live outdoors for a week.

I'll admit to the cliche. The idea is that, removed from our modern society of artificial noise and illusory values (I don't know what that means), that I can "commune with nature", and possibly kill and eat a squirrel or something.

I don't expect any kind of deep vision quest, the clouds part and the moon opens like an eye and teaches me to talk the language of the spirits. That would be cool, of course, but I'm not expecting it.

I'm just wondering if immersing one's self in a more "natural" environment gets you a different perspective. Also, how does one cook squirrel?

I went to a cabin in the woods with some friends before. Then a friend and I decided to hike around the lake (about 8-9 miles). Well, we got lost (part of the trail hadn't been maintained in 20+ years, so we ended up mistakenly following boundary markers instead of trail markers), and ended up having to sleep outdoors, without sleeping bags or tents. Luckily, we were both fine (although tired and sore from the cold and rocky ground), and made our way out of the surrounding forest the next morning.

That was the last time I "communed with nature". If properly prepared though, I wouldn't mind intentionally going camping.

I went to a cabin in the woods with some friends before. Then a friend and I decided to hike around the lake (about 8-9 miles). Well, we got lost (part of the trail hadn't been maintained in 20+ years, so we ended up mistakenly following boundary markers instead of trail markers), and ended up having to sleep outdoors, without sleeping bags or tents. Luckily, we were both fine (although tired and sore from the cold and rocky ground), and made our way out of the surrounding forest the next morning.

That was the last time I "communed with nature". If properly prepared though, I wouldn't mind intentionally going camping.

If you get lost on a simple hike, you probably shouldn't be allowed outdoors.

Okay, so, I guess everything is sort of "in nature" in a way, but I mean the comparatively wild nature. And I admit that I'd be taking clothes, tools, some supplies, maybe a sleeping roll, so its not exactly without modern comforts.

define "Commune with nature?"

I've gone camping many times. sometimes with others, sometimes alone.

Sometimes with a sleeping bag and tent, other times with just a packet of food and my emergency kit.

but no matter what or how, you gotta be smart about it. When I go solo, I always go to a place I am familiar with and I always take a communicating device. Radio (walkie talkies) cell phone etc. and I always go to a place others know I go to. I check out the weather forcast and plan for a few extra days. Yes a radio and flashlight with extra batteries are part of my emergency kit.

I would NOT recommending the Hunt and eat what you kill method. unless YOU KNOW what to do. some plants may look tasty, but they can be as deadly as rattlesnake venom. so be smart and be careful.

If you get lost on a simple hike, you probably shouldn't be allowed outdoors.

"Simple" Hikes are the ones most people get lost on. because they think 'simple' and don't take the necessary precautions.

"Simple" Hikes are the ones most people get lost on. because they think 'simple' and don't take the necessary precautions.

Hence, why many should not be allowed out of doors.

Hence, why many should not be allowed out of doors.

I've seen experenenced "outdoor" types get lost on a "simple" hike. what seperates them from others is that they know what to do and have done things to insure that they are found.

GM sounded like he stayed calm (one thing alot of beginners fail to do) and assessed the situation properly (another thing alot of beginners fail to do). so keeping him indoors is not an approriate action for one mistake. Now the guy who took those kids canyoning without checking the weather...

Also, how does one cook squirrel?

Over an open fire, roast slowly, taking good care to ensure the meat stays tender and use lemon zest for good flavour.

Over an open fire, roast slowly, taking good care to ensure the meat stays tender and use lemon zest for good flavour.

Dredge in flour, pan fry in butter, and make some gravy. Serve over biscuits.

Dredge in flour, pan fry in butter, and make some gravy. Serve over biscuits.

But, what if he doesn't have butter, flour and gravy?

But, what if he doesn't have butter, flour and gravy?

Gosh, what do I carry when I go to the woods? Do I forget a small pan to cook in? A small amount of flour, fat, salt, and pepper? Do I know how to cook and make gravy?

Shoving a stick up the squirrel's ass, and roasting it over the fire isn't my idea of tasty eats...

Shoving a stick up the squirrel's ass, and roasting it over the fire isn't my idea of tasty eats...

But it makes for an interesting flambé option, you know.

"Dear, what are we having tonight?"
"Stick-in-ass squirrel with fresh biscuits and a glass of port."

Okay, so, I guess everything is sort of "in nature" in a way, but I mean the comparatively wild nature. And I admit that I'd be taking clothes, tools, some supplies, maybe a sleeping roll, so its not exactly without modern comforts.
OK, I've got tools, CHECK, supplies, CHECK, sleeping bag, CHECK... hmmm, I can't help thinking I'm forgetting something.

If you get lost on a simple hike, you probably shouldn't be allowed outdoors.

As I said, part of the trail hadn't been maintained in 20+ years, and we ended up following boundary markers instead of trail markers. The trail was on the boundary, but turned away (that's where the maintenance stopped).

Considering the rangers sent after us had problems following the trail too, I guess the problem wasn't us.

Over an open fire, roast slowly, taking good care to ensure the meat stays tender and use lemon zest for good flavour.

Chipmunks roasting on an open fire
Hot sauce dripping from their toes
(?Oh! That tickles!?)
Yuletide squirrels fresh filleted by the choir
They poked hot skewers through their nose
(?Ow! Wrong end, ya cowboy!?)
Everybody knows some pepper and a garlic clove
Help to make them seasoned right
Tiny rats with a crisp golden coat
Will really hit the spot tonight

To give you the short version, unless you can write a note before you set out that specifies exact GPS coordinates and landmarks, and can 100% insure that that is exactly where you will be (which is nearly impossible, even for an expert), SAR won't simply be to walk in and find you no problem.

Given that you have no idea how to navigate, and seem to think that just simply learning how to read a map can substitute for experience, you will not end up where you say you will.

Again, easily solved. Me and a friend go in first, with a GPS, and find a good spot. We get coordinates with a device, with waypoints on the way in and the way back, then we go home. He keeps a record of the spots. I use the GPS to follow the same waypoints when I got back on my own.


As for risks to SAR personnel, backcountry is hazardous, even to experts. You'll be asking people to come looking for you in dead of night and in whatever conditions and terrain you go into. (SAR operations go 24/7.) There's not really any means to mitigate that, other than having a modicrum of an idea of what you're doing.

See above. They'll have the spot.

Also, I looked, and there are even emergency transmitter devices that SAR people know to search for, that I can carry with me. You set it to activate on its own if you don't tell it you're safe on the last day.

Perhaps there are other ways I can help disclose my condition to them, and I'd like to hear them, but your "short version" doesn't seem to be willing to think about ways that these problems can be overcome and prepared for.

On, and Baldwin, the reason I make serious comments even though I think the entire proposal is foolish is because this is a publicly viewable forum, and it would be bad, in my opinion, to allow nothing but jokes and romanticization of risk to be put out there with no reference to reality.

And you're way of dealing with that is by several times reacting as if its serious instead of saying "This isn't serious, its jokes and romanticization of risk with no reference to reality"?

I think all and any discussion about whether you are serious, and/or whether you are anything but incredibly, unfathomably naive, unprepared and unfit to attempt such an excursion are settled.

That I wasn't originally going to bring a tent is the big tell for you?

When we camped before, it was outdoors without a tent. This time I won't have partners, of course, but its possible to winter camp without a tent.

OK, I've got tools, CHECK, supplies, CHECK, sleeping bag, CHECK... hmmm, I can't help thinking I'm forgetting something.

"Supplies" is a broad term, the equipment list isn't finalized yet, but obviously I'm not going to list everything. I am thinking about swapping my .17 HMR for something without a bull barrel, though.

Dredge in flour, pan fry in butter, and make some gravy. Serve over biscuits.

A myriad of possibilities
http://www.wildlifeuk.net/wildlife-uk-competition-1-grey-squirrel-recipe-f-53.html

But, what if he doesn't have butter, flour and gravy?

I am not carrying in butter, flour and gravy!

I don't even know what to do with flour at home...

And you're way of dealing with that is by several times reacting as if its serious instead of saying "This isn't serious, its jokes and romanticization of risk with no reference to reality"?
You = romanticizing risk taking.

Some other posters = jokes and clearly not taking you seriously.

Me and some other posters = not taking YOU seriously, but in the interest of the general reading audience wanting to mention a little of the reality of good camp craft, real risks of survival camping/trekking, and real risks and issues with back country rescues. Why? Because lots of people go back country camping/trekking, and lots of other people would like to but don't really know what it entails, and lots of people get themselves into trouble doing that every single year.

In other words, I was treating your topic as an opportunity to point out what little I know of the reality of the matter and how your plan is an example of what not to do, not for your sake -- since you apparently don't really care -- but for the interest of anyone else who might be reading.

You = romanticizing risk taking.

Some other posters = jokes and clearly not taking you seriously.

Me and some other posters = not taking YOU seriously, but in the interest of the general reading audience wanting to mention a little of the reality of good camp craft, real risks of survival camping/trekking, and real risks and issues with back country rescues. Why? Because lots of people go back country camping/trekking, and lots of other people would like to but don't really know what it entails, and lots of people get themselves into trouble doing that every single year.

In other words, I was treating your topic as an opportunity to point out what little I know of the reality of the matter and how your plan is an example of what not to do, not for your sake -- since you apparently don't really care -- but for the interest of anyone else who might be reading.

Come now, Mur, you several time acted as if I were serious, and if your true concern was for the observer, illustrating it as farcical and letting them know that is far more useful than treating it as serious.

EDIT: Which you eventually did, but not for quite a while.

Come now, Mur, you several time acted as if I were serious, and if your true concern was for the observer, illustrating it as farcical and letting them know that is far more useful than treating it as serious.

EDIT: Which you eventually did, but not for quite a while.
Now you're the one reading things into another person's posts. First you decide to tell me all the minute details of everything you decided I was seriously assuming about your family life, even though I said I was just making stuff up to show you how foolish I thought you were looking. Now you're making up stories about how much you think I really secretly care about the horrible danger you're saying you intend to put yourself into.

Understand this very clearly: You asked a question about camping. I answered it seriously. In subsequent posts, you made it pretty obvious that you were not really seeking advice, but merely announcing a plan you had no intention of changing regardless of what answers you got. It became obvious that you had no intention of listening to the advice that you were being given. It became obvious that you were determined to paint this as some kind of Call of the Wild or Razor's Edge search for self in the arms of natural death, which, I think I made clear -- at least I tried to make it clear -- that I think that's self-indulgent bullshit.

As a result of that I stopped caring what you do. Go on your little trip or don't, survive or die, whatever. I also stopped caring about your little "Well...I'm off!" act in NSG. All I care about at this point is that misinformation about wilderness safety should be not be disseminated as part of your personal drama, for the sake of (a) basic truthfulness and (b) anyone who might want to make a wilderness trek of their own but is not yet informed about the risks.

In other words, B, as soon as I decided that you were just posturing for attention -- which is pretty much what I've decided -- I stopped treating your thread as if it was just about you.

Now you're the one reading things into another person's posts. First you decide to tell me all the minute details of everything you decided I was seriously assuming about your family life, even though I said I was just making stuff up to show you how foolish I thought you were looking. Now you're making up stories about how much you think I really secretly care about the horrible danger you're saying you intend to put yourself into.

I'm reading in? Where did I ever claim I think you "really secretly care"? I said you posted serious responses. You did.


Understand this very clearly: You asked a question about camping. I answered it seriously. In subsequent posts, you made it pretty obvious that you were not really seeking advice, but merely announcing a plan you had no intention of changing regardless of what answers you got.

Oh, really? Even though I changed several aspects of it, including supplies, based on information I got in this thread?


It became obvious that you had no intention of listening to the advice that you were being given. It became obvious that you were determined to paint this as some kind of Call of the Wild or Razor's Edge search for self in the arms of natural death, which, I think I made clear -- at least I tried to make it clear -- that I think that's self-indulgent bullshit.

Except for the multiple bits of advice that I did take it, including water tablets, how to store matches, the SAR stuff is resulting in several changes in equipment and location...did you read the thread?


As a result of that I stopped caring what you do. Go on your little trip or don't, survive or die, whatever. I also stopped caring about your little "Well...I'm off!" act in NSG. All I care about at this point is that misinformation about wilderness safety should be not be disseminated as part of your personal drama, for the sake of (a) basic truthfulness and (b) anyone who might want to make a wilderness trek of their own but is not yet informed about the risks.

In other words, B, as soon as I decided that you were just posturing for attention -- which is pretty much what I've decided -- I stopped treating your thread as if it was just about you.

If you had said earlier "He's just posturing for attention, what he's doing isn't the thing to do", sure. But you went for quite a while.

But the important thing is, you want to be very, very clear how little you care about this. And I believe you don't care whether I survived some camping trip or not.

I'm reading in? Where did I ever claim I think you "really secretly care"? I said you posted serious responses. You did.



Oh, really? Even though I changed several aspects of it, including supplies, based on information I got in this thread?



Except for the multiple bits of advice that I did take it, including water tablets, how to store matches, the SAR stuff is resulting in several changes in equipment and location...did you read the thread?



If you had said earlier "He's just posturing for attention, what he's doing isn't the thing to do", sure. But you went for quite a while.

But the important thing is, you want to be very, very clear how little you care about this. And I believe you don't care whether I survived some camping trip or not.
Why are you still talking to me about me?

I have told you where I'm coming from. You are not going to get a different answer. You can interpret it, review it, spin it to flatter yourself as much as you like, but it won't make any difference. You can play little games pretending that I'm misrepresenting the argument because I paraphrase, but I'm not going to rise to that bait. You want to add some scenes to your inner drama, you're going to have to make a popsicle puppet to stand in for me, and do the voice yourself, too, because I'm not in it.

I stand by my stated position: The OP question was presented under false pretenses, asking for advice that was not really being sought. Your plan as presented is not clever, nor is it romantic, nor is it admirable or brave. It is just foolish and dangerous, and people need to realize that. They need to take note of the posts that outline the real risks someone would be facing who does what you say you're going to do, and they need to take those risks seriously and get informed and trained before trying it themselves.

As for whether I care about you or not -- if you understand that I really don't care what you do in your real life, then why are you still talking about it?

Why are you still talking to me about me?

Actually, I talked about your posts, which were at issue, and I talked about all the advice on the thread that I did take, because you claimed I didn't take any of it.


I have told you where I'm coming from. You are not going to get a different answer. You can interpret it, review it, spin it to flatter yourself as much as you like, but it won't make any difference. You can play little games pretending that I'm misrepresenting the argument because I paraphrase, but I'm not going to rise to that bait. You want to add some scenes to your inner drama, you're going to have to make a popsicle puppet to stand in for me, and do the voice yourself, too, because I'm not in it.

Says the person who just finished Scene 3, Act IV.

Seriously, though, you very much misrepresent things. Central to your point is that I have no intention of taking the advice here, and I've demonstrated that I'm taking several parts of it. Note that addressed your argument, not you personally.


I stand by my stated position: The OP question was presented under false pretenses, asking for advice that was not really being sought. Your plan as presented is not clever, nor is it romantic, nor is it admirable or brave. It is just foolish and dangerous, and people need to realize that. They need to take note of the posts that outline the real risks someone would be facing who does what you say you're going to do, and they need to take those risks seriously and get informed and trained before trying it themselves.

Again, go look. Some of the advice has been taken and put in the plan, and more is being sought. You keep ignoring that, but since your main goal seems to be to "stand by your stated position", I guess you'd have to ignore several things.


As for whether I care about you or not -- if you understand that I really don't care what you do in your real life, then why are you still talking about it?

Because this isn't real life, its NSG.

And the best human drama I've seen all week is a person who keeps saying "Why are you still talking about it?" while they themselves keep talking voluminously about it.

I'm still posting because its my thread, and more advice might be coming. I'm replying to you because you keep saying I have no intention of taking the advice, even when anybody reading the thread can see I've taken parts of it, not others. That's how advice works.

Okay, so, I guess everything is sort of "in nature" in a way, but I mean the comparatively wild nature. And I admit that I'd be taking clothes, tools, some supplies, maybe a sleeping roll, so its not exactly without modern comforts.


What I'm thinking is, before school really gets going, heading out to some national park or something, and live outdoors for a week.

I'll admit to the cliche. The idea is that, removed from our modern society of artificial noise and illusory values (I don't know what that means), that I can "commune with nature", and possibly kill and eat a squirrel or something.

I don't expect any kind of deep vision quest, the clouds part and the moon opens like an eye and teaches me to talk the language of the spirits. That would be cool, of course, but I'm not expecting it.

I'm just wondering if immersing one's self in a more "natural" environment gets you a different perspective. Also, how does one cook squirrel?

I know someone who tried it in a big park near me, his plan was to stay for a week in a tent in the park. He stayed half a night...

I know someone who tried it in a big park near me, his plan was to stay for a week in a tent in the park. He stayed half a night...

That could definitely happen.

Actually, I talked about your posts, which were at issue, and I talked about all the advice on the thread that I did take, because you claimed I didn't take any of it.



Says the person who just finished Scene 3, Act IV.

Seriously, though, you very much misrepresent things. Central to your point is that I have no intention of taking the advice here, and I've demonstrated that I'm taking several parts of it. Note that addressed your argument, not you personally.



Again, go look. Some of the advice has been taken and put in the plan, and more is being sought. You keep ignoring that, but since your main goal seems to be to "stand by your stated position", I guess you'd have to ignore several things.



Because this isn't real life, its NSG.

And the best human drama I've seen all week is a person who keeps saying "Why are you still talking about it?" while they themselves keep talking voluminously about it.

I'm still posting because its my thread, and more advice might be coming. I'm replying to you because you keep saying I have no intention of taking the advice, even when anybody reading the thread can see I've taken parts of it, not others. That's how advice works.
Oh, just go into the woods already!

Do you realize how long it's been since you even tried to talk to me about the topic? Reminder: You didn't make this thread about me. What the hell do you care what I think, eh? You asked me why I said something. I told you why, what my thoughts were. Now you want to have a discussion about how you don't like that I think you're just acting out about this camping thing. But I ask again -- what do you care what I think? I think you're full of hot air. So what? Who the hell am I? Nobody. How much does my opinion of anything you do matter? Zero -- that's how much.

And now you want to waltz around about who has the longest word count and thus cares the most and is the most dramatic? Really? Really? If you really want to be the Queen Drama Queen of Your Drama, I'll be happy to put you on ignore for the duration of your own thread, but if someone posts some obviously and potentially dangerously false information in it, I will challenge that. How's that for a plan? I'll just pretend the thread host doesn't exist at all, while still keeping up with what really interests me. Will that clear up the situation for you? At the very least, it will let you make the longest posts that are about you.

Oh, just go into the woods already!

Do you realize how long it's been since you even tried to talk to me about the topic? Reminder: You didn't make this thread about me. What the hell do you care what I think, eh? You asked me why I said something. I told you why, what my thoughts were. Now you want to have a discussion about how you don't like that I think you're just acting out about this camping thing. But I ask again -- what do you care what I think? I think you're full of hot air. So what? Who the hell am I? Nobody. How much does my opinion of anything you do matter? Zero -- that's how much.

And now you want to waltz around about who has the longest word count and thus cares the most and is the most dramatic? Really? Really? If you really want to be the Queen Drama Queen of Your Drama, I'll be happy to put you on ignore for the duration of your own thread, but if someone posts some obviously and potentially dangerously false information in it, I will challenge that. How's that for a plan? I'll just pretend the thread host doesn't exist at all, while still keeping up with what really interests me. Will that clear up the situation for you? At the very least, it will let you make the longest posts that are about you.

You're already ignoring my posts, or at least not reading them well.

I've been posting, on topic, about your claim that I don't intend to take the advice I've been given. You've been ignoring that, probably because anybody can go back and look and see that your wrong, I've taken some of it.

Seriously, my last posts at you have been on topic about the advice, and I'm simply refuting your claims that I have no intention of taking that advice.

That claim was important enough for you to repeatedly make it, but when its demonstrably false, suddenly you want to talk about my drama instead of the topic of the advice.

Based on your last several responses, you putting me on ignore won't really make your responses any less reflective of what I've actually said.

I've sat in the woods alone for a week before. It was the single most boring thing I've ever done. I ended up sitting in a tree naked for eight hours, then building a catapult out of sticks and my clothes, and giving myself a mild concussion with it, then lying on the ground in pain for a few days.

You're already ignoring my posts, or at least not reading them well.

I've been posting, on topic, about your claim that I don't intend to take the advice I've been given. You've been ignoring that, probably because anybody can go back and look and see that your wrong, I've taken some of it.

Seriously, my last posts at you have been on topic about the advice, and I'm simply refuting your claims that I have no intention of taking that advice.

That claim was important enough for you to repeatedly make it, but when its demonstrably false, suddenly you want to talk about my drama instead of the topic of the advice.

Based on your last several responses, you putting me on ignore won't really make your responses any less reflective of what I've actually said.
You are the one doing the misrepresenting, by insisting that I said things in seriousness after I told you specifically I was just making them up for effect. But since, as you misread and misapply my posts, they are completely useless to you, then you won't miss it when I no longer reply to you.

Enjoy talking with others about what kind of gun you're going to bring with you and whether you need a tent or not. The side-topic of me is closed.

I've sat in the woods alone for a week before. It was the single most boring thing I've ever done. I ended up sitting in a tree naked for eight hours, then building a catapult out of sticks and my clothes, and giving myself a mild concussion with it, then lying on the ground in pain for a few days.
:D I think you've just predicted the OP's future, but I do wish there was tape of that.

:D I think you've just predicted the OP's future, but I do wish there was tape of that.

It'd have to be well-edited. The part of climbing the tree naked and the catapult scene would be good, but the 84-ish hours of me lying on the ground in pain/delirium and only moving to eat/drink would be rather boring.

I've sat in the woods alone for a week before. It was the single most boring thing I've ever done. I ended up sitting in a tree naked for eight hours, then building a catapult out of sticks and my clothes, and giving myself a mild concussion with it, then lying on the ground in pain for a few days.

Kinda reminds me of one of the first camping trips I had as a councilor.

we had to check out the valley to make sure it was stable for the kids. so the leader climed the fence and wandered into the darkness (it was late at night.)

he comes running out of the trees with a bull chasing him. made it over the fence before the bull really "became one" with him. :D

Been there, done that. Bring an air mattress to put under your sleeping bag. Pack all your stuff in plastic bags inside your backpack. It'll be pretty cold at night, so wear sweats inside the bag.

You are the one doing the misrepresenting, by insisting that I said things in seriousness after I told you specifically I was just making them up for effect.

Again, it seems you've been ignoring my posts for a while now, yet still trying to reply to them.

I said that you were serious "for quite a while". Once you said "Oh, I'm not being serious", I simply pointed that you had before that.


But since, as you misread and misapply my posts, they are completely useless to you, then you won't miss it when I no longer reply to you.

I've read and quoted your replies several times. Especially your repeated claims that I have no intention of taking the advice that was given, but then I did. You STILL continue to ignore that, even though it was repeated part of your argument before. Suddenly, now your own argument seems ignored by you as much as mine.


Enjoy talking with others about what kind of gun you're going to bring with you and whether you need a tent or not. The side-topic of me is closed.

Yes, you've said that several times. Maybe this time will be the actual follow through. Either way, your replies have repeatedly ignored what I'm claiming, and what you yourself have claimed about whether I'm going to take the advice.

So, like I said, when you finally actually do put me on ignore and don't read my posts at all, your replies will still show the same level of awareness of what I've said.

Been there, done that. Bring an air mattress to put under your sleeping bag. Pack all your stuff in plastic bags inside your backpack. It'll be pretty cold at night, so wear sweats inside the bag.

So, I'm hearing two schools of thought on that. Some people say sleeping on the hard ground has been better for their back, some have said its way, way worse.

An air mattress sounds okay, but a durable one is likely heavy, yeah?

So, I'm hearing two schools of thought on that. Some people say sleeping on the hard ground has been better for their back, some have said its way, way worse.

An air mattress sounds okay, but a durable one is likely heavy, yeah?

what type of terrain are you planning on camping on.
Feild?
Wooded area?
Forest?
beach?

I've sat in the woods alone for a week before. It was the single most boring thing I've ever done. I ended up sitting in a tree naked for eight hours, then building a catapult out of sticks and my clothes, and giving myself a mild concussion with it, then lying on the ground in pain for a few days.

What was the catapult for? To alleviate boredom? Same with being naked in the tree?

what type of terrain are you planning on camping on.
Feild?
Wooded area?
Forest?
beach?

That's very open at this point.

I might prefer forest, but its starting to look like there are more lightly wooded areas that fit my needs.

Beach is interesting...

Nah. I got a single-sized one that was rubberized cloth that pumped up with a foot pump that sounded like I was doing something nasty to a goose. It was small and rolled tight. It wasn't that heavy.

The added benefit of it was that the people I was camping with who made fun of my bringing it pitched the tent in such a way that during a thunderstorm we had a stream come through tent (but my sleeping bag and I were raised up so I didn't get wet). We moved the tent as soon as we could but apparently my friends found every damned rock in the world right under their sleeping bags. I was blessedly unaware. ;)

http://www.paragonsports.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CatalogSearchResultView?ip_inputEncoding=UTF-8&langId=-1&ip_locale=en_US&catalogId=10051&storeId=10551&ip_text=&ip_searchWithin=&ip_constrain=&ip_relax=&ip_sortBy=&ip_page=-1&ip_perPage=25&ip_viewBy=&ip_autoSummarize=&ip_summarizeBy=&ip_expandDrillDown=&ip_collapsDrillDown=&ip_logNrow=&ip_logFeatureId=&ip_logHref=&ip_textRemoveTerm=&ip_mode=0&ip_action=-1&ip_state=c0%3Di%253A1%253B768%253Biphrase%2Bbundle%2Bdescription%252Ciphrase%2Bbundle%2Bname%252Coth erIndexedTextPlain%253Bmattress%253B%253Amattress%253B1%252C1%253B%252B0%26c1%3De%253A1%252F%252Fiph rase%2BWCSAttr_9d3e2d73e5932bf07888de110b421479e6cff003%252F%252F%253Aeq%252F%252FSleeping%2BPads%26 m0%3Diphrase%2Bbundle%2Bid%26s2%3Dsitemap%2Bid%252F%252F1%26s1%3Diphrase%2BWCSAttr_574793574e70d12fa e7c9d5d36057aaa6e33b923%252F%252F1%26s0%3Diphrase%2Brelevance%252F%252F0%26qid%3DqsaUfnDo3HQgy%26k0. 0%3Dmattress%26v0%3Dmattress%26cln%3D%26t%3D0%26q%3D24%26qtid%3Dq4yIyWgcF2cOb%26lc%3Den_US%26rid%3Dr afFMVTsZd5wl%26ioe%3DUTF-8%26i%3Dsitemap%2Bid%26vid%3Dv8qRPtjgU3cKo%26qt%3D1232074142%26a0%3Diphrase%2Bbundle%2Btaxonomy%252F %252Fv%253A0%26mcmode%3Dtest&ip_datauiCommand=&ip_tid=&categoryId=null&ip_wcsCompareItems=

Some light mattresses here.

That's very open at this point.

I might prefer forest, but its starting to look like there are more lightly wooded areas that fit my needs.

Beach is interesting...

Rope/Twine, Tarp, knife and sticks. with these simple pieces of equiptment, I made a very sturdy covered hammock. be sure to select stout trees for that tho.

If you're going to beach it. then remember to mark where the High Tide line is and add an additional 5 to 10 feet.

Nah. I got a single-sized one that was rubberized cloth that pumped up with a foot pump that sounded like I was doing something nasty to a goose. It was small and rolled tight. It wasn't that heavy.

The added benefit of it was that the people I was camping with who made fun of my bringing it pitched the tent in such a way that during a thunderstorm we had a stream come through tent (but my sleeping bag and I were raised up so I didn't get wet). We moved the tent as soon as we could but apparently my friends found every damned rock in the world right under their sleeping bags. I was blessedly unaware. ;)


Some light mattresses here.

Some of those don't look too bad. I might have one, but mine was kind of heavy, ten years old. The new stuff is probably lighter.

I'll add that.

Rope/Twine, Tarp, knife and sticks. with these simple pieces of equiptment, I made a very sturdy covered hammock. be sure to select stout trees for that tho.

If you're going to beach it. then remember to mark where the High Tide line is and add an additional 5 to 10 feet.

That sounds like a lot of building. The bed roll might be more my speed.

Temperature might be more moderate near a big body of water, but I think I'd likely have to fish instead of hunt. Most of the places I'm finding where I can hunt small game year round unlicensed are far from the water. EDIT: I should say, far from water with a beach.

I've been fishing, but I've had more success hunting. Hm. Something to weigh.

That sounds like a lot of building. The bed roll might be more my speed.

Temperature might be more moderate near a big body of water, but I think I'd likely have to fish instead of hunt. Most of the places I'm finding where I can hunt small game year round unlicensed are far from the water.

I've been fishing, but I've had more success hunting. Hm. Something to weigh.

Not really. first one I build went up in 10- 15 minutes. and it kept me dry when it did rain. next time we went down into the gulley... you should've seen how many more covered hammocks went up. :p

it was a wilderness survival thing for Boy Scouts. we went down with one groundcover (tarp) one canteen, machette/hatchet, some string/rope and one meal packet (raw veggies and hamburger) and flint/steel.

Not really. first one I build went up in 10- 15 minutes. and it kept me dry when it did rain. next time we went down into the gulley... you should've seen how many more covered hammocks went up. :p

it was a wilderness survival thing for Boy Scouts. we went down with one groundcover (tarp) one canteen, machette/hatchet, some string/rope and one meal packet (raw veggies and hamburger) and flint/steel.
A sleeping surface (container, whatever) that is both raised and covered (like a house :p) is very important. It should be wind and water resistant, too.

In Girl Scouts, our survival exercises pretty much had us building fully furnished bungalows out of sticks and rope. :D We moved in for the long haul, just settled down, built villages, which was good training for me because I have absolutely no sense of direction. I aced every campcraft skill test, but flunked orienteering hilariously. Seriously, to this day, I get lost in my own neighborhood on routes I walk twice a week. I have no idea how.

Not surprisingly, I will never, never go out into the back country by myself. Never gonna happen. But I do try to keep up basic survival skills because I know that if, by some misadventure, I do end up in the back country by myself, there is no way I will ever be able to walk out, so I'll just have to move in. Set up housekeeping and just hope someone shows up someday who can lead me out again.

Not really. first one I build went up in 10- 15 minutes. and it kept me dry when it did rain. next time we went down into the gulley... you should've seen how many more covered hammocks went up. :p

Are these pre-assmebled parts from a kit, or did you just start with the twine and the knife? I could maybe do a kit, but from just the twine, I'd probably tend toward the air mattress with the bedroll.

A sleeping surface (container, whatever) that is both raised and covered (like a house :p) is very important. It should be wind and water resistant, too. hence the tarp. the sticks are used to keep it relatively open, and you can line the inside with towels or what not. then use the other half of the tarp as a cover by flipping it over the hammock. :p

In Girl Scouts, our survival exercises pretty much had us building fully furnished bungalows out of sticks and rope. :D We moved in for the long haul, just settled down, built villages, which was good training for me because I have absolutely no sense of direction. I aced every campcraft skill test, but flunked orienteering hilariously. Seriously, to this day, I get lost in my own neighborhood on routes I walk twice a week. I have no idea how.

Not surprisingly, I will never, never go out into the back country by myself. Never gonna happen. But I do try to keep up basic survival skills because I know that if, by some misadventure, I do end up in the back country by myself, there is no way I will ever be able to walk out, so I'll just have to move in. Set up housekeeping and just hope someone shows up someday who can lead me out again.
Technically, actually, you're not supposed to go camping alone. just like swimming, a buddy system is important. because you never know what might happen. anyone going camping alone needs to take more precautions. like telling people when you will be back so that they know when to alert the authorities that you're missing. (Looks at BfC)

Are these pre-assmebled parts from a kit, or did you just start with the twine and the knife? I could maybe do a kit, but from just the twine, I'd probably tend toward the air mattress with the bedroll.

nope, tarp, string/rope and sticks. :tongue:

just remember to inflate that air mattress slowly if you're not using a pump. :wink:

So, I'm hearing two schools of thought on that. Some people say sleeping on the hard ground has been better for their back, some have said its way, way worse.

An air mattress sounds okay, but a durable one is likely heavy, yeah?

The first function of any camping mattress is to insulate you from the ground so you don't freeze in the night. Comfort is secondary. So the type (air, foam, close-cell, etc...), thickness and/or combination of types depends on environment you'll be camping in.

hence the tarp. the sticks are used to keep it relatively open, and you can line the inside with towels or what not. then use the other half of the tarp as a cover by flipping it over the hammock. :p


Technically, actually, you're not supposed to go camping alone. just like swimming, a buddy system is important. because you never know what might happen. anyone going camping alone needs to take more precautions. like telling people when you will be back so that they know when to alert the authorities that you're missing. (Looks at BfC)
Oh, yes, that's very true. *nods* *doesn't look at BfC*

Technically, actually, you're not supposed to go camping alone. just like swimming, a buddy system is important. because you never know what might happen. anyone going camping alone needs to take more precautions. like telling people when you will be back so that they know when to alert the authorities that you're missing. (Looks at BfC)

Yes, that was covered earlier, and like I said, I'll be leaving information and more.

I realize its a big thread and it would be hard to go through it all.

I mentioned earlier that I will be leaving information about where I am, and me and a friend are even going to GPS map the waypoints together to make sure that when I go back alone I can find the same spot. That way, if I don't come back on the set day, SAR will know right where I am, as will my friend.

I'll also be carrying an emergency transmitter that I will set to go off on the last day if I don't tell it not to. (Thus, if I die or become incapacitated, it will go off on the last day, and they'll know where to find me).

(Looks at things covered in thread that even the people ostensibly keeping with the thread are ignoring...)

(Looks at things covered in thread that even the people ostensibly keeping with the thread are ignoring...)
better to be over warned than under prepared. ;)

better to be over warned than under prepared. ;)
Words to live by.

Btw, has anyone mentioned the buddy system yet? ;) I hear it's very useful in case one falls in the woods -- there'll be someone there to hear it.

better to be over warned than under prepared. ;)

Like I said, its a big thread, and I can understand why you didn't see it. That's why I filled you in.

Like I said, its a big thread, and I can understand why you didn't see it. That's why I filled you in.

it has nothing to do with me not seeing it or you not heeding it. it's there for everyone thinking about going camping... alone or otherwise. ;)

it has nothing to do with me not seeing it or you not heeding it. it's there for everyone thinking about going camping... alone or otherwise. ;)

Yes, its been mentioned several times by several people. Again, you're just joining the thread, and haven't been following it or purporting to have followed it, so you wouldn't have known that.

But it was already there for everyone thinking about going camping, alone or otherwise.

EDIT: Also, I went back and looked, and your "(looks at BfC)" very clearly implies something directed at me, related to either me not knowing about it or not heeding it.

For you to now say "oh, it has nothing to do with you not heeding it, its there for everyone" doesn't really wash with what you said earlier.

What was the catapult for? To alleviate boredom? Same with being naked in the tree?

yep. after I got the concussion, the catapult worked quite well. I had attached the payload (a filled 32oz water bottle) too far down on the 20+ foot piece of wood that was being used as a throwing-arm, and it swung high in the air, didn't fly off the throwing arm, passed vertical, started to fall, fell off at an odd angle, and came down directly on my head. After the long period of concussion recovery, I managed to launch it quite a ways, though.

Yes, its been mentioned several times by several people. Again, you're just joining the thread, and haven't been following it or purporting to have followed it, so you wouldn't have known that.

But it was already there for everyone thinking about going camping, alone or otherwise.

Then Fine BfC. go ahead and do what you believe you need to do. no one here can stop you and advice is all we can give. if you choose to ignore someone because "you thought they were talking to someone else" or "it's been repeated soo much that you ignore any further repetitions" then do so. Some things however, need to be repeated because 'it's the simple things that people tend to mess up the most.'

considering how many rescues we get from our Hiking Trails... forgive me for my perchance to repeat things others say.

yep. after I got the concussion, the catapult worked quite well. I had attached the payload (a filled 32oz water bottle) too far down on the 20+ foot piece of wood that was being used as a throwing-arm, and it swung high in the air, didn't fly off the throwing arm, passed vertical, started to fall, fell off at an odd angle, and came down directly on my head. After the long period of concussion recovery, I managed to launch it quite a ways, though.

So you were alone in the woods for a week, and the necessary work of surviving was not enough to keep you occupied, so you built a small siege device, and gave yourself a concussion.

Well...I will include in my plan "no...cata...pult."

So you were alone in the woods for a week, and the necessary work of surviving was not enough to keep you occupied, so you built a small siege device, and gave yourself a concussion.


Well, when you put it that way... :p

EDIT: Also, I went back and looked, and your "(looks at BfC)" very clearly implies something directed at me, related to either me not knowing about it or not heeding it.

For you to now say "oh, it has nothing to do with you not heeding it, its there for everyone" doesn't really wash with what you said earlier.

the reason I said "looks at BfC" is nothing more than you were the ONLY one asking for advice on camping. Here many single hikers get lost because they forgot some of the MOST BASIC fundamental rules of hiking/camping. one being LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND WHEN TO EXPECT YOU BACK! and our trails tend to be more of the SIMPLER ones nation-wide yet many people don't make it back or need to be rescued because they were ill prepared.

others being keep your cellphone/batteries fully charged and carry spares. plan for extended stays just in case.
and most importantly, don't move if visibility is poor. many hikers end up trapped on our mountains at night fall because they walked off a cliff they couldn't see.
and most importantly carry extra water.
but you know all that already. so you can ignore this if you wish.

Then Fine BfC. go ahead and do what you believe you need to do. no one here can stop you and advice is all we can give.

And I've taken quite a bit of it. Please go back and look.


if you choose to ignore someone because "you thought they were talking to someone else" or "it's been repeated soo much that you ignore any further repetitions" then do so. Some things however, need to be repeated because 'it's the simple things that people tend to mess up the most.'

Its been repeated, and I didn't ignore it, I acknowedged it, and explained why it doesn't fit with my purpose here. That is very much not ignoring it.

Again, please, check the history of the thread. I said I understood why you repeated it, you hadn't seen it before.

But to the old "looks at BfC" clearly implied you were directing it at me. To say otherwise in very disingenuous. It was moreso when you then tried to say that it was just for the general forum reader, after saying "(looks at BfC)".

Its not your advice I'm taking issue with. Its that you direct something clearly at me, then claim it wasn't directed at me.


considering how many rescues we get from our Hiking Trails... forgive me for my perchance to repeat things others say.

Yet again (and here I share your value of repetition, I'm just repeating things consistent with what I said before, which is really important to get the value from repetition), its not that you repeated the advice I'm taking issue with.

Its that you repeated it at me, with a comment clearly addressing it to me, then claimed you weren't really addressing it to me. That's the problem, not the advice or its repetition.

Then Fine BfC. go ahead and do what you believe you need to do. no one here can stop you and advice is all we can give. if you choose to ignore someone because "you thought they were talking to someone else" or "it's been repeated soo much that you ignore any further repetitions" then do so. Some things however, need to be repeated because 'it's the simple things that people tend to mess up the most.'

considering how many rescues we get from our Hiking Trails... forgive me for my perchance to repeat things others say.
I was idly googling "backcountry rescue" to see if I could find any info on the step-by-step details of how to conduct a search, because I'm trying to reconcile this idea of telling someone where you'll be -- and even having a GPS device, both of which are very good things to do -- with all the reports I've ever heard of rescues involving long hours, even days of searching an area.

A few days ago, when I was researching storms and rescues at sea, I found a great site for an outfit that does ocean rescue training that had a step-by-step list. Almost half the steps involved trying to visually locate the person in the water, and if/when you do, never taking your eyes off them -- assigning someone in the team to never take their eyes off them. EDIT: Obviously, water conditions are far different from land conditions.

I haven't found a similar list yet for backcountry SAR, but I did find one for the SAR unit in Waterbury, VT, that listed recent callouts. It was very minimal and noted where there was difficulty finding someone but didn't say how long the searches took. They also noted where multiple units responded and how many searchers were involved -- up to 29 on one call. I'll bet that's expensive.

I also found the site for Wasatch Backcountry Rescue in Utah, with tips about using locator transmitters if you get buried in snow. They mentioned that a person who gets buried in deep snow can be at significant likelihood of death if they're not dug out within 15 minutes. Finding the person fast is vital, obviously, but even with locators it's not easy. According to them, in a recent year Utah saw seven deaths of skiers buried by avalanche snow. Of that seven, five were carrying locator transmitters. Of course, 15 minutes isn't much of a window, but it goes to show the effect winter conditions can have on survivability.

the reason I said "looks at BfC" is nothing more than you were the ONLY one asking for advice on camping. Here many single hikers get lost because they forgot some of the MOST BASIC fundamental rules of hiking/camping. one being LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND WHEN TO EXPECT YOU BACK! and our trails tend to be more of the SIMPLER ones nation-wide yet many people don't make it back or need to be rescued because they were ill prepared.

Then you continue to contradict yourself. I acknowledged that advice, I'd gotten previously, and I respected that you hadn't seen that it had already been acknowleded and planned for.

But you turned around and tried to act as if it had " nothing to do with me not seeing it or you not heeding it. it's there for everyone thinking about going camping... alone or otherwise." Yet now you're back to emphasizing that I was the only one asking for advice.


others being keep your cellphone/batteries fully charged and carry spares. plan for extended stays just in case.
and most importantly, don't move if visibility is poor. many hikers end up trapped on our mountains at night fall because they walked off a cliff they couldn't see.
and most importantly carry extra water.
but you know all that already. so you can ignore this if you wish.

Yet again, I didn't ignore the advice. I responded that it had already been received and planned for, while acknowleding fair reasons why you wouldn't know that. If that's what you think "ignoring" is, well, I can't help you.

Since you advocate repetition, I'll accomodate that.

My problem is you say "looks at BfC" which you justify by saying that I was the only one asking for advice about camping, but then you say "it has nothing to do with me not seeing it or you not heeding it. it's there for everyone thinking about going camping... alone or otherwise."

I also found the site for Wasatch Backcountry Rescue in Utah, with tips about using locator transmitters if you get buried in snow. They mentioned that a person who gets buried in deep snow can be at significant likelihood of death if they're not dug out within 15 minutes.

The purpose of the transmitter, and of being at a point previous determined by GPS waypoints, is so that if I don't make it, SAR doesn't have to do an expensive or dangerous search.

I don't expect it to save my life if I'm injured, which is clearly revealed by me setting it so that it goes off on the last day if I don't click it. That way, it won't save my life if I'm hurt earlier, it just makes sure that SAR can find me.

Finding the person fast is vital, obviously, but even with locators it's not easy. According to them, in a recent year Utah saw seven deaths of skiers buried by avalanche snow. Of that seven, five were carrying locator transmitters. Of course, 15 minutes isn't much of a window, but it goes to show the effect winter conditions can have on survivability.

I imagine it said that the ones with transmitters were easier to find. And again, suvivability isn't the topic of the thread. The idea is to make it easier for SAR to locate my position if they need to, for their safety, not mine.

As the OP, I will say that survivability, avalanche prone locations, etc, are very off-topic.

Yet again (and here I share your value of repetition, I'm just repeating things consistent with what I said before, which is really important to get the value from repetition), its not that you repeated the advice I'm taking issue with.

Its that you repeated it at me, with a comment clearly addressing it to me, then claimed you weren't really addressing it to me. That's the problem, not the advice or its repetition.
I never claimed I wasn't really addressing it to you. I've stated I put 'looks at BcF' because you were the only one asking for advice. thus it was addressed to you. however the repetition itself will aid others who don't read long threads.

so technically, the best thing would've been a simple 'got it' or even 'I know that' and even a 'it's been mentioned and noted' would've worked. which would say to me, you know and to others coming into this thread that didn't read from the start "this is important". but by complaining the way you did, you placed the emphasis not on the fact that it was directed at you, but also because it was repetative advice. your complaint was that I was directing advice that others also said to you. thus you are complaining about repetative advice.

The purpose of the transmitter, and of being at a point previous determined by GPS waypoints, is so that if I don't make it, SAR doesn't have to do an expensive or dangerous search.

I don't expect it to save my life if I'm injured, which is clearly revealed by me setting it so that it goes off on the last day if I don't click it. That way, it won't save my life if I'm hurt earlier, it just makes sure that SAR can find me.
That wasn't the point I was making in that paragraph. I was focused on the effect of cold on the body. Obviously, you wouldn't be taking that particular safety advice because that's geared for skiers/boarders/snowmobilers, and that's not the kind of trip you're planning. That's why I didn't link to it. But why are you looking at my posts anyway?

I imagine it said that the ones with transmitters were easier to find. And again, suvivability isn't the topic of the thread. The idea is to make it easier for SAR to locate my position if they need to, for their safety, not mine.

As the OP, I will say that survivability, avalanche prone locations, etc, are very off-topic.
No, it didn't. It said the transmitters did not make it easier to find the people within the necessary timeframe. Which is why I mentioned it at all.

And like I said in my other post, the point was the effect of cold, which is on topic if you're still planning a winter trip.

And it wasn't directed to you anyway.

EDIT: Also, since you are planning to alert authorities as to your location, then how SAR works is also relevant. I'm not linking to sites that are not perfectly on point.

I also found the site for Wasatch Backcountry Rescue in Utah, with tips about using locator transmitters if you get buried in snow. They mentioned that a person who gets buried in deep snow can be at significant likelihood of death if they're not dug out within 15 minutes. Finding the person fast is vital, obviously, but even with locators it's not easy. According to them, in a recent year Utah saw seven deaths of skiers buried by avalanche snow. Of that seven, five were carrying locator transmitters. Of course, 15 minutes isn't much of a window, but it goes to show the effect winter conditions can have on survivability.
haven't been in snow, I can imagine the dangers. your body going into shock from the impact and cold. the drain in body heat and the chances of sufforcating... yeah, speedy rescue would be important.

I never claimed I wasn't really addressing it to you. I've stated I put 'looks at BcF' because you were the only one asking for advice. thus it was addressed to you. however the repetition itself will aid others who don't read long threads.

You said:

it has nothing to do with me not seeing it or you not heeding it. it's there for everyone thinking about going camping... alone or otherwise

This clearly implies it had "nothing" to do with me not heeding it, thus suggesting it wasn't directed at me.


so technically, the best thing would've been a simple 'got it' or even 'I know that' and even a 'it's been mentioned and noted' would've worked.

I replied with something very much like that, and even acknowledged politely that I understood why you wouldn't have seen it before. This was during part of the thread that you've been on, so you should have seen that, honestly.


which would say to me, you know and to others coming into this thread that didn't read from the start "this is important". but by complaining the way you did, you placed the emphasis not on the fact that it was directed at you, but also because it was repetative advice. your complaint was that I was directing advice that others also said to you. thus you are complaining about repetative advice.

If saying "Yes its been mentioned, I've got it and its planned for to leave that information, I can understand why you didn't see it before" is your version of "complaining", well, its a lot like your version of "ignoring".

That wasn't the point I was making in that paragraph. I was focused on the effect of cold on the body. Obviously, you wouldn't be taking that particular safety advice because that's geared for skiers/boarders/snowmobilers, and that's not the kind of trip you're planning. That's why I didn't link to it. But why are you looking at my posts anyway?

Because I wasn't saying I was going to ignore anybody. That's your game, which means that very question is better directed at you.

So, since you also acknowledge that this is advice for "skiers/boarders/snowmobilers", then its pretty off-topic.

No, it didn't. It said the transmitters did not make it easier to find the people within the necessary timeframe. Which is why I mentioned it at all.

And like I said in my other post, the point was the effect of cold, which is on topic if you're still planning a winter trip.

And it wasn't directed to you anyway.

EDIT: Also, since you are planning to alert authorities as to your location, then how SAR works is also relevant. I'm not linking to sites that are not perfectly on point.

Since the purpose of the SARs transmitter is not to have me recovered in a "necessary timeframe", but so the SARs people don't have to look hard or long for me if I don't show back up, thats also off-topic.

How SAR works is very relevant, if you understood what I'm using the transmitter for.

haven't been in snow, I can imagine the dangers. your body going into shock from the impact and cold. the drain in body heat and the chances of sufforcating... yeah, speedy rescue would be important.
Being buried in snow, I imagine, would speed up the hypothermia process a lot. It's something winter hikers need to be aware of. Skiers have it drummed into them, because they're at higher risk from avalanches, but in backcountry, you can find yourself walking across frozen surfaces without realizing there's nothing but 7 feet of snow under you until the crust gives way.

Since the purpose of the SARs transmitter is not to have me recovered in a "necessary timeframe", but so the SARs people don't have to look hard or long for me if I don't show back up, thats also off-topic.

How SAR works is very relevant, if you understood what I'm using the transmitter for.
Yes, you're apparently using it to put them at risk and use up their resources with corpse recovery. Since you don't want to be rescued, I don't see the point in alerting others to your location in the first place.

I communed with nature once. Nature told me to stop being an asshole.
Me and nature haven't talked since.

Yes, you're apparently using it to put them at risk and use up their resources with corpse recovery.

This has been explained, repeatedly. The sole stated purpose for the transmitter and for prior locating the spot by GPS with waypoints and leaving somebody with those records is to make things easier on a search and rescue group if it becomes necessary.

I won't be in avalanche country, I won't be in an area with heavy snow. The altitudes and climes I'm researching simply don't get to that point.

So, yes, as the OP, I can honestly say at this point, you're off-topic.

EDIT: I respect if others want to discuss avalance or winter survival, etc. I'm politely asking you to do it in another thread. Thanks.

My 2c is to get yourself an ELT. Preferably, one that transmits on the 121.5, 243.0, and 406.0 mhrtz frequencies. The 406 is more expensive, due to the fact that it's satellite based, but if you don't get a 406, you're waiting on a passing airliner to pick up a 121.5 or 243.0 transmission.

Also, if you're outside the United States, you will need a 406 mhrtz ELT, as 121.5 is not actively monitored anymore.

This has been explained, repeatedly. The sole stated purpose for the transmitter and for prior locating the spot by GPS with waypoints and leaving somebody with those records is to make things easier on a search and rescue group if it becomes necessary.

I won't be in avalanche country, I won't be in an area with heavy snow. The altitudes and climes I'm researching simply don't get to that point.

So, yes, as the OP, I can honestly say at this point, you're off-topic.

EDIT: I respect if others want to discuss avalance or winter survival, etc. I'm politely asking you to do it in another thread. Thanks.
okay, then. /ignore.

okay, then. /ignore.

Jaysis, finally. You've been talking about it long enough.

Do you really want to argue semantics with me? :p
You said:

This clearly implies it had "nothing" to do with me not heeding it, thus suggesting it wasn't directed at me.
now, please point out where I said in that quote that it wasn't directed at you.

what I said was that I didn't care if what I said was already covered, ignored or heeded. I put it out there for others to read.

remember, Common Sense isn't Common.
I replied with something very much like that, and even acknowledged politely that I understood why you wouldn't have seen it before. This was during part of the thread that you've been on, so you should have seen that, honestly. ah, but the thing is, you assumed I gave repetative advice because I didn't "see you aknowledging the advice before." to which what was my reply? that it doesn't matter if others repeated it, it's still sound advice.

If saying "Yes its been mentioned, I've got it and its planned for to leave that information, I can understand why you didn't see it before" is your version of "complaining", well, its a lot like your version of "ignoring".the fact that you have been 'assuming' that I didn't see it and thus that is why I've been 'repeating advice' to you. if you were NOT bothered by it, you wouldn't have posted that "[I] must've missed it" but a simpler "it's been said already." Many times I've taken Wilderness Survival students down into the gully and many times they told me "yeah, yeah no need to repeat it". yet what happens when they go down into that gully to spend ONE night alone? they come back with "Guess what I forgot to take/do..."

My 2c is to get yourself an ELT. Preferably, one that transmits on the 121.5, 243.0, and 406.0 mhrtz frequencies. The 406 is more expensive, due to the fact that it's satellite based, but if you don't get a 406, you're waiting on a passing airliner to pick up a 121.5 or 243.0 transmission.

Also, if you're outside the United States, you will need a 406 mhrtz ELT, as 121.5 is not actively monitored anymore.

Awesome. I just looked some up, they aren't nearly as heavy as I thought they'd be.

Do you really want to argue semantics with me? :p

now, please point out where I said in that quote that it wasn't directed at you.

what I said was that I didn't care if what I said was already covered, ignored or heeded. I put it out there for others to read.

remember, Common Sense isn't Common.
ah, but the thing is, you assumed I gave repetative advice because I didn't "see you aknowledging the advice before." to which what was my reply? that it doesn't matter if others repeated it, it's still sound advice.

the fact that you have been 'assuming' that I didn't see it and thus that is why I've been 'repeating advice' to you. if you were NOT bothered by it, you wouldn't have posted that "[I] must've missed it" but a simpler "it's been said already." Many times I've taken Wilderness Survival students down into the gully and many times they told me "yeah, yeah no need to repeat it". yet what happens when they go down into that gully to spend ONE night alone? they come back with "Guess what I forgot to take/do..."
Apparently, it's off topic to discuss wilderness safety in a thread about camping advice. Apparently, it's a bad thing to want to pursue a safety topic in any depth or along more than one line. I figured that, with all the talk about SAR and winter camping in the thread, it would be of interest to try to look up information about those things. Apparently, I was wrong. I also thought there would be more than one reader for this thread. Guess I was wrong about that, too.

This has been explained, repeatedly. The sole stated purpose for the transmitter and for prior locating the spot by GPS with waypoints and leaving somebody with those records is to make things easier on a search and rescue group if it becomes necessary.

I won't be in avalanche country, I won't be in an area with heavy snow. The altitudes and climes I'm researching simply don't get to that point.

So, yes, as the OP, I can honestly say at this point, you're off-topic.

EDIT: I respect if others want to discuss avalance or winter survival, etc. I'm politely asking you to do it in another thread. Thanks.

One question/point Baldwin for Christ.

According to your op...
What I'm thinking is, before school really gets going, heading out to some national park or something, and live outdoors for a week.
where are you and when are you planning on going. because I got the impression from your op that you're planning your trip within the month.

now, please point out where I said in that quote that it wasn't directed at you.

Where you said "It has nothing to do with you not heeding it" and "Its for everybody thinking about going camping". That suggests this emphasis is elsewhere.


what I said was that I didn't care if what I said was already covered, ignored or heeded. I put it out there for others to read.

Actually you did take issue with me allegedly ignoring it, with your whole "We can only give the advice" implication that this was a lead the horse to water thing and I was supposedly ignoring it.


remember, Common Sense isn't Common.
ah, but the thing is, you assumed I gave repetative advice because I didn't "see you aknowledging the advice before." to which what was my reply? that it doesn't matter if others repeated it, it's still sound advice.

the fact that you have been 'assuming' that I didn't see it and thus that is why I've been 'repeating advice' to you. if you were NOT bothered by it, you wouldn't have posted that "[I] must've missed it" but a simpler "it's been said already." Many times I've taken Wilderness Survival students down into the gully and many times they told me "yeah, yeah no need to repeat it". yet what happens when they go down into that gully to spend ONE night alone? they come back with "Guess what I forgot to take/do..."

I several times said words to the effect that "Its been said already". Honestly, please, at this point, really, go back and look.

The fact is, if you're now claiming that you knew it had already been said, knew I had already seen it, already acknowledged, and explained why it didn't work for my purposes, then the "looks at BfC" was merely snotty and was clearly not for the benefit of others.

You keep trying to make this a case of me hearing the advice and going "yeah, yeah, I'll remember". Its not. I've heard the advice and explained why its not for me for this trip.

If you wanted to repeat that for others fine, but the "looks at BfC" suggests that wasn't your only reason, and if you HAD (as you now claim) seen before where I'd acknowledged the advice and rejected, again, its just mere snottiness.

One question/point Baldwin for Christ.

According to your op...

where are you and when are you planning on going. because I got the impression from your op that you're planning your trip within the month.

Orginally, yes, it was for within a month, but because of some good advice I've gotten, I might be twice that or more.

I need to get a GPS, map the spot, get more supplies than I thought, etc.

Contrary to the position many insist on standing by, I have actually taken some of the advice I've gotten here. Delaying the trip long enough to find an easily accessible local, mark it, and get the transmitter is part of that.

Apparently, it's off topic to discuss wilderness safety in a thread about camping advice. Apparently, it's a bad thing to want to pursue a safety topic in any depth or along more than one line. I figured that, with all the talk about SAR and winter camping in the thread, it would be of interest to try to look up information about those things. Apparently, I was wrong. I also thought there would be more than one reader for this thread. Guess I was wrong about that, too.

Again, apparently what I said was being ignored even before officially "Ignored", because I never said wilderness safety was off topic.

Avalanche and high snow conditions are, because those aren't he areas I'll be in, and the clear implication of it anyway is to suggest that I'm endangering SARs.

If you want to pretend your posting all of that for any avalanche country campers who wander by, fine, but please make another thread for that.

You keep trying to make this a case of me hearing the advice and going "yeah, yeah, I'll remember". Its not. I've heard the advice and explained why its not for me for this trip. fine. whatever. let's just drop this now then to avoid threadjacking your thread.

Awesome. I just looked some up, they aren't nearly as heavy as I thought they'd be.

I highly recommend springing for the 406. GPS Satellites have been programmed to monitor that frequency since the beginning of... 2007 I think. Otherwise, you're waiting for an airliner to pass within sight of you (radio frequencies being line of sight only).

Once the ELT signal is detected, the local air traffic control facility will call a rescue agency that has a helicopter with an ELT locator antenna on board, which will track down your exact location.


Also, some of the 406mhrtz ELTs are also equipped with a GPS unit built in (for you to use). This can be handy. However, if you decide to use it in this way, be sure to carry extra batteries.

Orginally, yes, it was for within a month, but because of some good advice I've gotten, I might be twice that or more.

I need to get a GPS, map the spot, get more supplies than I thought, etc.

Contrary to the position many insist on standing by, I have actually taken some of the advice I've gotten here. Delaying the trip long enough to find an easily accessible local, mark it, and get the transmitter is part of that.

Again. where are you? state, providence, nation whatever...

fine. whatever. let's just drop this now then to avoid threadjacking your thread.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Weirdly, I'm finding I have to balance between areas with more or less rain, because evidently, those spots with little rain or snowfall also have a resulting lack of small game.

Areas with lower altitude are generally winding up being better, but also have more local county regs about small game. Still doable, but more to be aware of. The fact that I'm using a rimfire does seem to help in a lot of areas.

Again. where are you? state, providence, nation whatever...

I can travel for this. My friend is up for the first part, like a road trip, then I go back on my own.

I was originally thinking anywhere between California and Colorado, because I've winter camped in Colorado (with people, though), but now I'm thinking between California and Georgia, and staying generally to the South.

Texas isn't looking too bad.

Yes I have...

But just remember these words no mater when or where you go...

"There is no such thing as bad weather, only inapropriate clothing"

I can travel for this. My friend is up for the first part, like a road trip, then I go back on my own.

I was originally thinking anywhere between California and Colorado, because I've winter camped in Colorado (with people, though), but now I'm thinking between California and Georgia, and staying generally to the South.

Texas isn't looking too bad.

then let me put a little perspective on Muravyets discussion about winter safety. your op sounded like within the month (Jan) now you said a couple of months (mar/Apr). Jan is winter. lots of snowed areas. you never mentioned any specific location so Murav's concerns about avalanches are sound. add to that a couple of months later (Mar/Apr) would put you about the time of the start of Spring thaw. where Murv's concerns are again valid yet added with the possiblities of Flash flooding. you were originally thinking California and Colorado two areas that have snowfall in the mountain areas. again you were never specific as to where you were going. So our slight detour into winter survival (of which I deferre to Murv's experience since being in Hawaii I have very little experience with snow. and we do have snow in Hawaii. :D) is relevant since weather conditions and environmental concerns were mentioned earlier in this thread. now, the fact that Murv and I butt heads over many issues from time to time yet Murv is backing me up on alot of things should tell you that we are just trying to cover baises because you were not really that specific as to where and when you were going and I'm sure the LAST thing any of us wants to see is you not posting because of some tragedy that turned you from poster to statistic. so again, I'm sorry for any repetition, and off topic ramblings but Mother Nature is a class 1 Alpha Bitch and she is NOT forgiving.

Here in Hawaii, we do have a saying. "Never turn your back to the ocean" feel free to modify it to "Never Turn your Back to Mother Nature." ;)

and now it sounds like your friend will drive you there but won't be camping with you. is that correct?

Yes I have...

But just remember these words no mater when or where you go...

"There is no such thing as bad weather, only inapropriate clothing"

My Russian prof told me that once. Its kind of a bummer, I need to buy new boots and gloves, but I won't be able to use them much because its fairly warm where I live, doesn't snow, etc. I won't get much repeat use out of a lot of these supplies unless I really enjoy this and decide to do it again.

*big snip* so again, I'm sorry for any repetition, and off topic ramblings but Mother Nature is a class 1 Alpha Bitch and she is NOT forgiving.

Fair enough. And I know that even areas without avalanche or deep snow can still kill you. In my research, one thing I'm running into a lot is mine-shafts. That's a big part of what I'm looking at at the moment.


and now it sounds like your friend will drive you there but won't be camping with you. is that correct?

So, he and I will go out together first, with a GPS, and map waypoints to the spot, once we've found it. Then we'll map waypoints back. We'll make sure I now how to get back to the exact same spot, so he'll know where I'll be and how I got there.

Then we drive home, road strip, Dr. Peppers and slim jims.

Then I go back on my own another week, use the GPS to find the waypoints, bring the ELT, etc. So, he'll know where I'll be, and how I'll get there if I don't make it.

Well, you seem to be getting to a better plan here - less Aokigahara (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1373287/Japan-struggles-with-soaring-death-toll-in-Suicide-Forest.html) and more Chris McCandless (http://outside.away.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html).

Pick up a copy of the BSA's Fieldbook or a similar such manual, and you'll thank yourself.

I f you want to cook a squirrel see Hugh Fernly Wittingstalls books they tell you where to find them and how to cook various dishes with the meat from the back legs. However you may want to invest in a gun to try otherwise you may go hungry!
I've tried some off the dishes and they are really nice.

Well, you seem to be getting to a better plan here - less Aokigahara (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1373287/Japan-struggles-with-soaring-death-toll-in-Suicide-Forest.html) and more Chris McCandless (http://outside.away.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html).

Pick up a copy of the BSA's Fieldbook or a similar such manual, and you'll thank yourself.

From the link you gave, the McCandless dude actually had some mojo, at least for a while. Says he was a "veteran" of several wilderness excursions, and it looks like he lasted a hell of a lot longer than I would.

But it also looks like he went way deeper than I plan to.

I remember reading about the Japanese suicide forest when I lived in Japan. In my case there will at least be some attempt made at surviving.

I f you want to cook a squirrel see Hugh Fernly Wittingstalls books they tell you where to find them and how to cook various dishes with the meat from the back legs. However you may want to invest in a gun to try otherwise you may go hungry!
I've tried some off the dishes and they are really nice.

I'm actually finding that squirrel, at least in some areas, may be off the menu. Its protected in some states. Those areas still have rabbit, skunk, mole, vole, etc, and a few kinds of unprotected edible birds.

I also got hold of a friend in Tennessee who does GPS-based water management research at the university, might be able to hook me up with a GPS.

I am not carrying in butter, flour and gravy!

I don't even know what to do with flour at home...

Then remit to my recipe for squirrel.

then let me put a little perspective on Muravyets discussion about winter safety. <snip>
Thank you for understanding and setting out so clearly the points I was trying to make.

Apparently, it's off topic to discuss wilderness safety in a thread about camping advice. Apparently, it's a bad thing to want to pursue a safety topic in any depth or along more than one line. I figured that, with all the talk about SAR and winter camping in the thread, it would be of interest to try to look up information about those things. Apparently, I was wrong. I also thought there would be more than one reader for this thread. Guess I was wrong about that, too.

I'm not sure where Baldwin is doing his thing, but if it's in the Eastern US, it's rather hard to be so far from civilization that you can't walk to a road inside of an hour. It's also rather easy to use a cellphone in this "neck of the woods" - you only need fancy radio equipment in some parts of the Western US or Alaska.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time living outdoors, "looking up information" is nowhere near as good as having someone with experience take you out to the woods the first few times. You'll find that a lot of what you read in camping books and such is arrant nonsense, and serves only two purposes: 1) to make you buy expensive shit you'll never use, and 2) make you carry 120 pounds of crap when you could have done quite well with 40 pounds.

I'm not sure where Baldwin is doing his thing, but if it's in the Eastern US, it's rather hard to be so far from civilization that you can't walk to a road inside of an hour. It's also rather easy to use a cellphone in this "neck of the woods" - you only need fancy radio equipment in some parts of the Western US or Alaska.
Heh, not for me it isn't, as I said in an earlier post, but then my lack of orienteering skills is nearly at disability level.

And in any event, there are plenty of things that can happen in the relatively tame and crowded countryside of the US Northeast that can stop you getting out safely on your own. Hikers and climbers need rescuing or lose their lives very frequently in the White Mountains (NH) which are not only rugged and high but prone to severe weather shifts in the upper elevations. All the Northeast mountains (which is where all the "wildness" in this region is) are prone to rain/melt runoff flash flooding, rock falls, caving and crevasse accidents, all of which catch hikers/climbers by surprise and can cause significant injury or death in any season. And in two or three seasons out of the year, those mountains are subject to patchy storm patterns that can catch a person in the woods in sudden descents of blinding fog, rain and cold conditions that frequently lead to people getting lost in conditions for which they are not dressed right.

Campers in the Northeast region typically do not run into the trouble that backcountry campers in the western mountains or deserts do, because it is much easier to settle down in a place where access in and out is easier or more controllable. But people moving through the region -- hikers and trekkers -- do get into serious trouble frequently. It is not unusual for a planned half-day hike to turn into a 24-hour or longer ordeal or for people to be lost in these not-that-isolated hills for a few days before they are found or eventually find their own way out.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time living outdoors, "looking up information" is nowhere near as good as having someone with experience take you out to the woods the first few times. You'll find that a lot of what you read in camping books and such is arrant nonsense, and serves only two purposes: 1) to make you buy expensive shit you'll never use, and 2) make you carry 120 pounds of crap when you could have done quite well with 40 pounds.
Well of course, looking things up is not a substitute for proper instruction and training. But it is not possible to expand an NSG conversation into in-person, in-field training with an experienced mentor. For the sake of conversation, I think it is sufficient to look up basic information just to reference the kinds of things that people need to take into consideration, which is all I was trying to do. Under no circumstances should anyone take that as final information on what to do. It is only there to tell people why they need to consult with real experienced outdoorspeople and outdoor safety experts.

I'm not sure where Baldwin is doing his thing, but if it's in the Eastern US, it's rather hard to be so far from civilization that you can't walk to a road inside of an hour. It's also rather easy to use a cellphone in this "neck of the woods" - you only need fancy radio equipment in some parts of the Western US or Alaska.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time living outdoors, "looking up information" is nowhere near as good as having someone with experience take you out to the woods the first few times. You'll find that a lot of what you read in camping books and such is arrant nonsense, and serves only two purposes: 1) to make you buy expensive shit you'll never use, and 2) make you carry 120 pounds of crap when you could have done quite well with 40 pounds.
i cant help but wonder why baldwin isnt quizzing YOU about his plans instead of relying on those of us who have only basic theoretical knowledge of what is involved in winter wilderness camping.

i cant help but wonder why baldwin isnt quizzing YOU about his plans instead of relying on those of us who have only basic theoretical knowledge of what is involved in winter wilderness camping.

I can't help but wonder why anyone would believe what some random poster said in regards to outdoor survival.

I mean, there are forums where you can be sure (there's one run by some military folks) who people are - they verify your credentials in person.

But this is NSG.... and if you see my advice, it's to get an in-person guide.

But I guess that's rotten advice in your estimation...

I'm not sure where Baldwin is doing his thing, but if it's in the Eastern US, it's rather hard to be so far from civilization that you can't walk to a road inside of an hour. It's also rather easy to use a cellphone in this "neck of the woods" - you only need fancy radio equipment in some parts of the Western US or Alaska. by this reasoning, people shouldn't get lost on a Island. just put the mountain to your back and walk straight. you'll hit a road or water soon enough. ;) but we know that's not true. neither is cell coverage.

the best bet would be to talk to the park rangers (if one is camping at a National Park) then they would know someone is camping and can also provide information as to where would be the best area and any seasonal/localized problems.

a good sturdy radio set to the Park Ranger's frequency is all you really need. no GPS tracking unit (most cell phones already have that built in) and if the Park Rangers know you're out there, they will check up on you.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time living outdoors, "looking up information" is nowhere near as good as having someone with experience take you out to the woods the first few times. You'll find that a lot of what you read in camping books and such is arrant nonsense, and serves only two purposes: 1) to make you buy expensive shit you'll never use, and 2) make you carry 120 pounds of crap when you could have done quite well with 40 pounds.
heh...
this is true. but then again, even with a guide/more experienced person, it's fun for them watching you carry 120 pounds worth of crap while they're barely carrying 40. :D

Books have to be conservative. they have to take everyone reading it into account. not everyone can be a lumberjack and be ok. some require some security blanket from civilization.

by this reasoning, people shouldn't get lost on a Island. just put the mountain to your back and walk straight. you'll hit a road or water soon enough. ;) but we know that's not true. neither is cell coverage.


If you're in Shenandoah National Park, the cell coverage is more reliable than using a radio to call the rangers.

the best bet would be to talk to the park rangers (if one is camping at a National Park) then they would know someone is camping and can also provide information as to where would be the best area and any seasonal/localized problems.

a good sturdy radio set to the Park Ranger's frequency is all you really need. no GPS tracking unit (most cell phones already have that built in) and if the Park Rangers know you're out there, they will check up on you.

Kind of hard for him to do the shooting small game thing in a National Park or National Forest. In most of them, it's illegal.

If you're in Shenandoah National Park, the cell coverage is more reliable than using a radio to call the rangers. which is why one tends to carry BOTH.

Kind of hard for him to do the shooting small game thing in a National Park or National Forest. In most of them, it's illegal.depends on the park he's going to... and when.

EDIT: but I will agree with the BSA book. they give alot of information on things one might need while camping. such as FIRST AID. ;)

I can't help but wonder why anyone would believe what some random poster said in regards to outdoor survival.

I mean, there are forums where you can be sure (there's one run by some military folks) who people are - they verify your credentials in person.

But this is NSG.... and if you see my advice, it's to get an in-person guide.

But I guess that's rotten advice in your estimation...
no. i totally believe that you have some level of winter camping experience. i think that its very good advice.

not that the rest of us havent been giving good advice but its far more theoretical.

i cant help but wonder why baldwin isnt quizzing YOU about his plans instead of relying on those of us who have only basic theoretical knowledge of what is involved in winter wilderness camping.
I can't understand why he's not just calling the public offices of the parks in the areas he's interested in to get the lowdown on their rules and advice on how to prepare for seasonal camping, instead of coming to an internet forum that isn't even focussed on outdoors sports as an interest. This is NSG, where what we do is argue over issues/topics. You give us a topic, we'll discuss it. That's what we're doing. You want actual advice about outdoor camping, go to an outdoor camping forum -- or call some rangers.

by this reasoning, people shouldn't get lost on a Island. just put the mountain to your back and walk straight. you'll hit a road or water soon enough. ;) but we know that's not true. neither is cell coverage.

the best bet would be to talk to the park rangers (if one is camping at a National Park) then they would know someone is camping and can also provide information as to where would be the best area and any seasonal/localized problems.

a good sturdy radio set to the Park Ranger's frequency is all you really need. no GPS tracking unit (most cell phones already have that built in) and if the Park Rangers know you're out there, they will check up on you.


heh...
this is true. but then again, even with a guide/more experienced person, it's fun for them watching you carry 120 pounds worth of crap while they're barely carrying 40. :D

Books have to be conservative. they have to take everyone reading it into account. not everyone can be a lumberjack and be ok. some require some security blanket from civilization.
Tim Cahill, the adventure travel writer I mentioned earlier, wrote another article about armchair adventuring and the kinds of people who love to read wilderness survival handbooks. He talked a lot about classic handbooks that were on the market; it was pretty hilarious.

But he highlighted his points about wilderness survival fantasies with a true story of real survival about two teenage boys who got lost on a mountainside when they got caught by a sudden storm during a simple day hike. Those boys got lost in a fog, wandered off the marked trail, and found themselves stuck on a ledge, unable to find their way out. Then they started doing things right. First, they consulted the survival book they had with them. Then they settled down and stayed where they were and started trying to find ways to keep warm. Then, as night was descending, they did the last right thing that led to them being found by the helicopter that had been searching for them. They were spotted by the light of the fire they built...

...by burning the survival book.

...by burning the survival book.

LOL! if they followed that book, then that was the best use for that waste of trees! :tongue:

While that is true for alot of "surivial books," the BSA Handbook also gives tips on selecting campsites, generalized tips btw. also how to use ropes and GENERALIZED tips on how to determine what plants to avoid. even firestarting. ;)

it also gives fast and easy first aid tips. as well as orientation tips. but as we stated before, it's best to get specific knowledge about the area.

LOL! if they followed that book, then that was the best use for that waste of trees! :tongue:

While that is true for alot of "surivial books," the BSA Handbook also gives tips on selecting campsites, generalized tips btw. also how to use ropes and GENERALIZED tips on how to determine what plants to avoid. even firestarting. ;)

it also gives fast and easy first aid tips. as well as orientation tips. but as we stated before, it's best to get specific knowledge about the area.
Pfft. Pfft I say to the BSA Handbook. That's nothing compared to one publisher's kit of "Survival Cards" which were a set of ringbound, waterproofed (so you could carry them with you) flash cards that covered such things as how to do field amputations -- "The decision to remove a limb should not be made lightly." -- actual advice. :D

But to cut off that tangent, the point is that you are right, and getting direct and specific guidance from people who know the area you are going into is far more important than general discussions about "tips."

But when it comes to general "tips," in camping as in life, my personal advice always boils down to "prepare for the worst." For thousands of years, human beings -- who in ancient times knew a shitload more about wilderness survival than most of us do today -- have carried extra food and water with them on treks (for example), even though they also carried weapons/tools for hunting/fishing/gathering along the way. There is a reason for that -- and that reason is that there is no guarantee that you will be able to find or get anything to eat or drink along the way -- and I see no reason why we should now start ignoring thousands of years of tried and true wisdom.

When I plan a trip away from pavement, I try to plan it the way a traveler of 4,000 years ago might have. That means I tote in with food and water, layers of extra clothing, especially head and foot coverings, first aid gear, a way to carry fire fuel that I will bring in with me and gather along the way, and some way to get dry fast if I happen to get wet.

I'd try an overnight at a KOA first.

From what it's starting to sound like, he's done that, and thought he could make the leap from KOA straight to Survivorman.

From the link you gave, the McCandless dude actually had some mojo, at least for a while. Says he was a "veteran" of several wilderness excursions, and it looks like he lasted a hell of a lot longer than I would.

But it also looks like he went way deeper than I plan to.

I remember reading about the Japanese suicide forest when I lived in Japan. In my case there will at least be some attempt made at surviving.

Nope. He was a freaking idiot who got himself Darwined. The point was your plans gone from straight up suicidal to foolish.

Let's put it this way - you've gone from planning to drive cross country on at night w/o knowing how to drive a car to planning to drive cross country on during the day w/ having driven a car around the block once.

I'm not sure where Baldwin is doing his thing, but if it's in the Eastern US, it's rather hard to be so far from civilization that you can't walk to a road inside of an hour. It's also rather easy to use a cellphone in this "neck of the woods" - you only need fancy radio equipment in some parts of the Western US or Alaska.

I thought he said Southwest. Southwestern backcountry can seem pretty innocuous to a greenhorn.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time living outdoors, "looking up information" is nowhere near as good as having someone with experience take you out to the woods the first few times. You'll find that a lot of what you read in camping books and such is arrant nonsense, and serves only two purposes: 1) to make you buy expensive shit you'll never use, and 2) make you carry 120 pounds of crap when you could have done quite well with 40 pounds.

For sure having the hands on experience is better.

And the BSA Feildbook is not the perfect one by any means, just one that I know is more likely to be applicable. Not that I expect him to get one, but having one

which is why one tends to carry BOTH.

Which reminds me to point out another reason why one may want to carry two communications devices - they get busted, run out of batteries, etc., etc.

Then, as night was descending, they did the last right thing that led to them being found by the helicopter that had been searching for them. They were spotted by the light of the fire they built...

...by burning the survival book.

:D Well, the book did give useful advice about staying put. But sems to have had less to say about fire starting.

But when it comes to general "tips," in camping as in life, my personal advice always boils down to "prepare for the worst." For thousands of years, human beings -- who in ancient times knew a shitload more about wilderness survival than most of us do today -- have carried extra food and water with them on treks (for example), even though they also carried weapons/tools for hunting/fishing/gathering along the way. There is a reason for that -- and that reason is that there is no guarantee that you will be able to find or get anything to eat or drink along the way -- and I see no reason why we should now start ignoring thousands of years of tried and true wisdom.

When I plan a trip away from pavement, I try to plan it the way a traveler of 4,000 years ago might have. That means I tote in with food and water, layers of extra clothing, especially head and foot coverings, first aid gear, a way to carry fire fuel that I will bring in with me and gather along the way, and some way to get dry fast if I happen to get wet.

sound advice. I always plan for a few days extra.

and I always carry at lest three different ways of starting a fire. matches, lighter and flint/steel. tho I do have my bow starter, but that I can cobble together if need be.

:D Well, the book did give useful advice about staying put. But sems to have had less to say about fire starting.
I skipped over a bunch of details. The story was that the book gave very good advice about starting a fire, but because the boys were lost due to a storm, they could not find anything dry enough to burn -- except the book.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;14405642]Pfft. Pfft I say to the BSA Handbook. That's nothing compared to one publisher's kit of "Survival Cards" which were a set of ringbound, waterproofed (so you could carry them with you) flash cards that covered such things as how to do field amputations -- "The decision to remove a limb should not be made lightly." -- actual advice. :D

LOL

Just to make clear, I wasn't at all suggesting that he'd learn what he needs to know from the BSA Fieldbook, just that it was better than nothing at all. (note: The Handbook does cover fieldcraft, but is mostly the day to day running a troop, merit badges, and all sorts of non-camping related stuff.)

sound advice. I always plan for a few days extra.

and I always carry at lest three different ways of starting a fire. matches, lighter and flint/steel. tho I do have my bow starter, but that I can cobble together if need be.
Yes, good detail. You want to have as many options for firestarting as possible, and as I said in my first post, once you get a fire started, you want to avoid letting it go out again (especially knowing how to put it to bed so it will stay hot while you're sleeping, because in the morning the cool fuel will be wet from condensation; having some hot embers ready to flame up again is a blessing).

and I always carry at lest three different ways of starting a fire. matches, lighter and flint/steel. tho I do have my bow starter, but that I can cobble together if need be.

That reminds me, how good are you with the bow starter?

That came up here at home just the other day, funnily enough while watching Survivorman, LOL. Turns out my dad's never gotten that down while I used to have it down pretty damned good.

I skipped over a bunch of details. The story was that the book gave very good advice about starting a fire, but because the boys were lost due to a storm, they could not find anything dry enough to burn -- except the book.

An excellent example of the difference bewtween book learning and hands on learning! :D

LOL

Just to make clear, I wasn't at all suggesting that he'd learn what he needs to know from the BSA Fieldbook, just that it was better than nothing at all. (note: The Handbook does cover fieldcraft, but is mostly the day to day running a troop, merit badges, and all sorts of non-camping related stuff.)
Sorry about the Fieldbook/Handbook mistake. The Girl Scouts just have the Handbook, which combines everything.

Sorry about the Fieldbook/Handbook mistake. The Girl Scouts just have the Handbook, which combines everything.

No worries. :)

BTW, I sould note my mother's also quite the wilderness woman as well - Gold Award, IIRC (top rank for Girl Scouts).

No worries. :)

BTW, I sould note my mother's also quite the wilderness woman as well - Gold Award, IIRC (top rank for Girl Scouts).
Hehe, my GS experience makes it almost impossible for me to "camp" in the generally accepted sense of the word, because my troop would move into a forested area and essentially build a whole compound out of sticks, tarp and rope. All our bedrolls were elevated. All our tents were walled. We built mechanical laundry and shower facilities. We constructed kitchen-counter-like work surface structures so we wouldn't have to sit on the dirt to prep our food, as well as seating arrangements around our fires. We basically just built houses. :D We'd live in them for a week or two, and then break them down and scatter the leavings in such a way that in a few days, you might never know anyone had been there. That was the goal.

Unless it was an established camping site. Then it might have a nearby waterpump and firewood shed. We'd clean and restock those, so that's how you'd know the Girl Scouts had been -- following the GS instruction to "leave a place in better shape than you found it."

That reminds me, how good are you with the bow starter?
It's been years... scratch that, decades, since I used a bow starter. I was pretty average back in the day... Flint and Steel was my forte.

Sorry about the Fieldbook/Handbook mistake. The Girl Scouts just have the Handbook, which combines everything.

same with my old BSA Handbook. sucker was as thick as a bible. :D

Infact, there were some nights I used that as a pillow!

It's been years... scratch that, decades, since I used a bow starter. I was pretty average back in the day... Flint and Steel was my forte.

Oddly enough, what got the conversation started was that old Les (on the show) was having trouble getting his bow starter going, and dad sdaid he'd never been able to get one going. (I think that was the same episode where he nearly burned down his own shelter... LOL)

Does it strike anyone else that there are quite a few posters that seem to think that one just can't go camping unless he's been before? If we were all that cautious, I think that the woods would be a very empty place. Outdoors is fun and everyone should try it at least once.

Does it strike anyone else that there are quite a few posters that seem to think that one just can't go camping unless he's been before? If we were all that cautious, I think that the woods would be a very empty place. Outdoors is fun and everyone should try it at least once.

"Camping" is one thing - the sort of "I'll be survival man eating squirrel on a stick for days in the depths of winter" is something else.

I agree that it's fun, and that most short trips in temperate climates in warm weather are relatively fun and risk-free.

Does it strike anyone else that there are quite a few posters that seem to think that one just can't go camping unless he's been before? If we were all that cautious, I think that the woods would be a very empty place. Outdoors is fun and everyone should try it at least once.

most people are saying don't go camping ALONE unless you been camping before.

"Camping" is one thing - the sort of "I'll be survival man eating squirrel on a stick for days in the depths of winter" is something else.

I agree that it's fun, and that most short trips in temperate climates in warm weather are relatively fun and risk-free.

Indeed.

And I brought this up w/ my dad, who's the SAR guy. His comment was "That's the sort of people we find dead."

My family used to do that like every weekend when I was little in the Summer...

Go out on the boat to a Sandbar and camp, it was pretty awesome...

Has anyone here read Tom Brown's books on wilderness survival? They are very spiritual in nature (pun intended) as well as having great stories about his learning to survive. All of his books are very detailed and cover every aspect of outdoor survival, both wilderness, and urban...As I recall (haven't picked one up in years), each of the books in the series covers everything, with an emphasis on the specific subject at hand. He has a couple of books about vision questing and such as well. They really come in handy during solos.

Defs a recommend. I love that kind of stuff. Never done it hardcore tho. Went camping where there was no electricity no ten trailer. Just you, tents and food you can carry. Went with four other people and it was lot of fun. Ive been bout twice so far, defs looking forward to doing it this summer as well.

I can't understand why he's not just calling the public offices of the parks in the areas he's interested in to get the lowdown on their rules and advice on how to prepare for seasonal camping, instead of coming to an internet forum that isn't even focussed on outdoors sports as an interest. This is NSG, where what we do is argue over issues/topics. You give us a topic, we'll discuss it. That's what we're doing. You want actual advice about outdoor camping, go to an outdoor camping forum -- or call some rangers.

Yet again, you're making a lot of assumptions and there are things you don't know about. I have contacted several State, Federal, and and even a few County group that handle wildlife management areas. That's been a big part of how I'm choosing local, and why I'm looking at different spots than I initially was.

I'm already getting e-mail responses back from various groups, including State Departments of Wildlife, because I wanted to confirm that their web information was updated on what game you can hunt and when.

The thread was to explore the "communing" part, it just more turned into a camping dicussion. But generally, they don't give a lot of camping advice over the phone that you can't find from books.

And you seemed plenty eager to give advice before, as many others still are. Suddenly, though, its not appropriate here, right?

Nope. He was a freaking idiot who got himself Darwined. The point was your plans gone from straight up suicidal to foolish.

Let's put it this way - you've gone from planning to drive cross country on at night w/o knowing how to drive a car to planning to drive cross country on during the day w/ having driven a car around the block once.


Well, with the GPS waypoints to an easily accessible spot, where somebody has been with me before, and I'll have the transmitter, at least SAR (or even just my friend that does the pre-trip with me) will know where I am, and that should make things substantially easier on anybody who has to retrieve my body.

As for him being a freaking idiot, he did something hard, and from the link you sent, he came very close to making it. From the information you sent, he survived several trips harsher than the one I'm planning. So, at the very least, he was a better "driver" than me, but he just kept going deeper and longer until it got him.

Has anyone here read Tom Brown's books on wilderness survival? They are very spiritual in nature (pun intended) as well as having great stories about his learning to survive. All of his books are very detailed and cover every aspect of outdoor survival, both wilderness, and urban...As I recall (haven't picked one up in years), each of the books in the series covers everything, with an emphasis on the specific subject at hand. He has a couple of books about vision questing and such as well. They really come in handy during solos.

Awful pun, but sounds like a good book reco.

Awful, awful pun, though. Awful.

Yet again, you're making a lot of assumptions <snip>, right?
No. Wrong. But everyone else seems to know what I mean, so I don't mind anymore.

No. Wrong. But everyone else seems to know what I mean, so I don't mind anymore.

No, you said this:

I can't understand why he's not just calling the public offices of the parks in the areas he's interested in to get the lowdown on their rules and advice on how to prepare for seasonal camping

Which clearly assumes that I haven't contacted the offices of the places I'm interested in. This is an incorrect assumption on your part.

Further, you take issue with me asking for advice here, you even said yourself that, before a point, you were giving advice. Many others continue to do so. Now you're saying asking for advice here is somehow inappropriate.

Just like your original claim was that I had "no intention of taking the advice" I was given, even though I've taken quite a bit of it.

Now, instead of complaining that I'm not taking the advice, you've switched gears to claim this isn't the place to ask for it.

I thought you had me on ignore, anyway? My response was to disabuse others of your assumptions. I didn't think you'd see it.


EDIT: It also occurs to me, earlier you were talking about how this is a place for arguing. Yet what you do above is simply say "No, you're wrong, and everybody else knows what I mean", as if that's a sound argument.

I, on the other hand, am presenting evidence, in the form of your own words and claims juxtaposed to your contradictory words and claims. Which of us is really cogently arguing?

So, a Serbian friend of mine who lived in the mountains for a time has given me some more advice. He keeps calling me some Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce. He won't tell me what it means, but based on context, I think it means either "City Buffoon Who Goes to Forest" or "Disposable Landmine Detector".

He gave a few pieces of advice. One, he says instead of the .17 HMR bolt action with the long bull barrel, I should switch to a shorter, lighter, break-open single shot that switches out barrels between a small caliber round and a shotgun barrel. I looked, they aren't very expensive, but its a different rifle that I haven't practiced with.

He also claims that food won't be my problem because I am "So fat, even other Americans look at you and say look at fat motherfucker." He claims I couldn't starve to death in five days, that I will die of dehydration first. I told him I might be so malnourished I can't walk out, he says he's seen Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce walk out starving after longer than that.

He also claims "You won't go too much in, because you go like pregnant cow when new cow is soon. Half day hike for you is half hour walk for soldier, if he carries other soldier."

So, apparently, I'll be needing to pick a spot not too far from the vehicle.

<snip>
I thought you had me on ignore, anyway?
But you keep talking to me. One doesn't wish to be rude. When the other person won't stop engaging, it puts one in an awkward spot.

My response was to disabuse others of your assumptions. I didn't think you'd see it.
More the fool you, then. It turned out my back wasn't turned after all. Maybe you should try being more interested in your topic, which those others are very happy to discuss with you, than in demonstrating your superiority over me.

EDIT: It also occurs to me, earlier you were talking about how this is a place for arguing. Yet what you do above is simply say "No, you're wrong, and everybody else knows what I mean", as if that's a sound argument.

I, on the other hand, am presenting evidence, in the form of your own words and claims juxtaposed to your contradictory words and claims. Which of us is really cogently arguing?
I'm not making an argument. Neither are you, which is why I'm not botheriing to make one in response. All you're doing is chafing my ass in a particularly snide manner, maybe because some random side remark or other that I made in the course of saying a lot of other things seems to have bothered you, and you've apparently decided to introduce a side topic that is all about me and all the faults you've assigned to me.

But I'm not interested in what you think of me, or my intellect or my habits. I'll venture to guess that not a lot of other people are interested in what you think of me, either. That's why I refuse to enage your "argument." That is why I will continue to refuse to do so. You can harp on about it till your keyboard breaks. I'm not playing. You can go into the wilderness and tell the bears what a pain in the ass I am. I won't cooperate.

Last time: I made no assumption. Yes, I saw all your "evidence." I made no assumption. I doubt anyone else was placed under any misapprehensions about you because of anything I said, of which they needed to be disabused by you. I made no assumptions and said nothing about you that anyone else in the thread seems to be taking as fact. Except you.

So, a Serbian friend of mine who lived in the mountains for a time has given me some more advice.

<snip the other stuff>

I LIKE him. He's funny.

Enjoy the great outdoors, jebo ti jeza u ledja.

But you keep talking to me. One doesn't wish to be rude. When the other person won't stop engaging, it puts one in an awkward spot.

More the fool you, then. It turned out my back wasn't turned after all. Maybe you should try being more interested in your topic, which those others are very happy to discuss with you, than in demonstrating your superiority over me.

Mur, even you have to realize the absurdity of saying "I'm going to ignore you", then say you're responding because you don't wish to be rude. What do you think ignoring means? You threaten in constantly, you just can't ever follow through.

As for being here to demonstrate superiority, your post about "Why doesn't he call the office, he shouldn't be asking for this here" is exactly YOU doing that, I was just responding with some facts that I had contacted them, and that you and others have been giving advice.

I only responded because of your fallacious assumption.

To sum: If you come on the thread and clearly imply that I haven't checked with the local area office of the places I'm looking at, I have the right to point out that is false assumption.


I'm not making an argument. Neither are you, which is why I'm not botheriing to make one in response. All you're doing is chafing my ass in a particularly snide manner, maybe because some random side remark or other that I made in the course of saying a lot of other things seems to have bothered you, and you've apparently decided to introduce a side topic that is all about me and all the faults you've assigned to me.

But I'm not interested in what you think of me, or my intellect or my habits. I'll venture to guess that not a lot of other people are interested in what you think of me, either. That's why I refuse to enage your "argument." That is why I will continue to refuse to do so. You can harp on about it till your keyboard breaks. I'm not playing. You can go into the wilderness and tell the bears what a pain in the ass I am. I won't cooperate.

I don't expect you to co-operate.

But when you present false information and assumptions, such as that I haven't contact the groups that I've contacted, I will correct your false assumptions.

As for you "not making an argument", you might check that you were just recently preaching that we're here to make an argument. If it "chafes your ass" so much that I'm pointing out that your assumptions are false, try to make an argument to rebut. If you can't, you're the one being snide.

Last time: I made no assumption. Yes, I saw all your "evidence." I made no assumption. I doubt anyone else was placed under any misapprehensions about you because of anything I said, of which they needed to be disabused by you. I made no assumptions and said nothing about you that anyone else in the thread seems to be taking as fact. Except you.

Several times: You said this:


I can't understand why he's not just calling the public offices of the parks in the areas he's interested in to get the lowdown on their rules and advice on how to prepare for seasonal camping.

That CLEARLY assumes that I haven't called these places.

And whether anybody buys your assumptions or not, there is the risk they might believe you. You don't recall earlier making an emphatic argument how important it is, even if you don't expect the person you're arguing with to believe you, to make sure the others get the facts? Or does that only apply to you?

But when you present false information and assumptions,
You missed this part:
Last time: I made no assumption. Yes, I saw all your "evidence." I made no assumption. I doubt anyone else was placed under any misapprehensions about you because of anything I said, of which they needed to be disabused by you. I made no assumptions and said nothing about you that anyone else in the thread seems to be taking as fact. Except you.

You missed this part:

No, our posts crossed. And that was an edit you added, that's why I "missed" it, it wasn't there the first time.

Look above, I responded to it after you added the Edit. I can understand why you didn't see it.

Several times: You said this:


I wish you'd let your Serbian friend post for you for a while.

I wish you'd let your Serbian friend post for you for a while.

Mur, be fair. Saying "I don't understand why he doesn't just do X" clearly contains the assumption that he's not doing X, doesn't?

And honestly, I didn't miss your Edit, you just added it after I'd given my first response.

Mur, be fair. Saying "I don't understand why he doesn't just do X" clearly contains the assumption that he's not doing X, doesn't?
be fair, can you show me where you posted that you did get in contact with various groups and agencies?

that is those posted before Mur's comment?

I also asked the Serb about the "communing" part.

He said "You are dumb cocksucker".

He's been calling me that for two years, so I tried to explain to him that I was hoping to find out something about myself. To put myself in a position where some sort of primal will to survive will emerge, or I will be extinguished per the dynamic of nature.

He said "Yeah, some Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce look for that. They come to mountains, to live, to fight. They were Serb, some from America, or West Europe. Two thing happens. One, they die. Two, they live and go home, stronger but wish they don't come.

You weak men, you think is good to be tough. To put your head to the wolf. You don't see..us who are living there, fighting, we fight for our houses, and to live. Not to understand life or some cowshit idea to see truth."

I told him, "Well, I think it will work for me. I need to find out if I have the will to live."

He said "Yes, there are words for that in Serb. In English, is 'dumb cocksucker'."

be fair, can you show me where you posted that you did get in contact with various groups and agencies?

that is those posted before Mur's comment?

Hence the word "Assumption".

To take something as given without knowing either way.


JuNii, I did not say "You're claiming I didn't call when I said I did."

I said that Mur assumed, without knowing the facts whether I did or not. She did.

EDIT: And JuNii, if you go back and look, when I told her she was making the assumption, it was in conjunction with the statement "There are things that you don't know about". Thus, I am CLEARLY not trying to claim that she should have known by some previous post of mine. I explicitly acknowledged that she DIDN'T know, and that she was assuming.

I also asked the Serb about the "communing" part.

He said "You are dumb cocksucker".

He's been calling me that for two years, so I tried to explain to him that I was hoping to find out something about myself. To put myself in a position where some sort of primal will to survive will emerge, or I will be extinguished per the dynamic of nature.

He said "Yeah, some Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce look for that. They come to mountains, to live, to fight. They were Serb, some from America, or West Europe. Two thing happens. One, they die. Two, they live and go home, stronger but wish they don't come.

You weak men, you think is good to be tough. To put your head to the wolf. You don't see..us who are living there, fighting, we fight for our houses, and to live. Not to understand life or some cowshit idea to see truth."

I told him, "Well, I think it will work for me. I need to find out if I have the will to live."

He said "Yes, there are words for that in Serb. In English, is 'dumb cocksucker'."

and this is posted in response to... :confused:

Mur, be fair. Saying "I don't understand why he doesn't just do X" clearly contains the assumption that he's not doing X, doesn't?

And honestly, I didn't miss your Edit, you just added it after I'd given my first response.

I think Mur is just a little touchy. It's better to be less.. analytical when you reply to her I reckon. For instance, instead of saying 'no, I did contact whoeveritwas, and also contacted suchandsuch, you're as usual making a lot of assumptions and your also doing x and doing y!', cut out the last bit, and just say 'no, I did contact whoeveritwas, and also contacted suchandsuch'. That way you can correct the mistake, and the only thing that could be argued about whether you really did that or not, and you wouldn't have this ongoing side argument about who said what.

and this is posted in response to... :confused:

I know its a big thread, JuNii. This was fairly recent:

wish you'd let your Serbian friend post for you for a while.

Seriously, though, the "communing" part was originally supposed to be the main part of the thread. Its on topic, from the OP, and doesn't really have to be in "response" to anything.

I think Mur is just a little touchy. It's better to be less.. analytical when you reply to her I reckon. For instance, instead of saying 'no, I did contact whoeveritwas, and also contacted suchandsuch, you're as usual making a lot of assumptions and your also doing x and doing y!', cut out the last bit, and just say 'no, I did contact whoeveritwas, and also contacted suchandsuch'. That way you can correct the mistake, and the only thing that could be argued about whether you really did that or not, and you wouldn't have this ongoing side argument about who said what.

I can see where being less analytical with Mur would make her less touchy. But she dishes out quite a bit of analysis when it suits her.

However, if you know her better, I'll defer and try to correct more gently in the future, and when I'm wrong, hopefully you'll do the same for me.

Hence the word "Assumption".

To take something as given without knowing either way.


JuNii, I did not say "You're claiming I didn't call when I said I did."

I said that Mur assumed, without knowing the facts whether I did or not. She did.

but I am asking you to show where you posted that you contacted anyone or agencies HERE in this thread. if YOU'RE going to yell or berate someone for making assumptions, then show how those assumptions are unfounded.

I assumed you were going within a month (and you confirmed that assumption true), and I also assumed you were going during winter/spring thaw (another assumption you confirmed true) add those confirmations with you saying first that you were going with a friend then amending it to now say your friend is only going with you to map the place out but not actually camp with you. and you can see where anyone can 'assume' that you have NOT gotten in contact with any agencies because you didn't say you did before Murv's 'assumption'.

and yes, I had those assumptions, as you can find during our conversation about Winter survival. ;)

Again, either show those posts that told us (NSG General) that you contacted those agencies you posted before Mur's post, or just say "I am in contact with those agencies."

I can see where being less analytical with Mur would make her less touchy. But she dishes out quite a bit of analysis when it suits her.

However, if you know her better, I'll defer and try to correct more gently in the future, and when I'm wrong, hopefully you'll do the same for me.

I don't know her at all, but I think I had the same problem as you (I'm on her ignore list btw).

I know its a big thread, JuNii. This was fairly recent:

Seriously, though, the "communing" part was originally supposed to be the main part of the thread. Its on topic, from the OP, and doesn't really have to be in "response" to anything.

well, just posting your narrative about the conversation with no reference as to WHO you are posting in response to does so defenately point to Murv's comment about letting your "Serb friend post for you". :rolleyes:

but I am asking you to show where you posted that you contacted anyone or agencies HERE in this thread. if YOU'RE going to yell or berate someone for making assumptions, then show how those assumptions are unfounded.

Again, I never claimed that I posted it previously. I pointed out that she made the assumption.

If you want to claim now that its somehow a well-founded assumption, well, given that previously I had mentioned research about mine shafts, hunting regulations, unprotected species, etc, its not all that well founded.

But, JuNii, even if it were, Muravyets claim was the she "made no assumptions". Please, I'm politely asking, go back and look. She claimed she made no assumptions at all. If you want to change her claim to "she made a well-founded assumption", we can debate that, but that's not what she said. Please, whatever acrimony there is here, go back and look.

As for "yelling and berating", saying "you've made this assumption" after they've claimed "I made no assumption" is hardly so fierce.


I assumed you were going within a month (and you confirmed that assumption true), and I also assumed you were going during winter/spring thaw (another assumption you confirmed true) add those confirmations with you saying first that you were going with a friend then amending it to now say your friend is only going with you to map the place out but not actually camp with you. and you can see where anyone can 'assume' that you have NOT gotten in contact with any agencies because you didn't say you did before Murv's 'assumption'.

Actually, going within a month was stated in the very first post as likely. I know its a big thread, but it was there. I later said it may be two months. But I also repeatedly mentioned several aspects of my research, including checking on hunting regs, etc. That would naturally include contact with local agencies.


and yes, I had those assumptions, as you can find during our conversation about Winter survival. ;)

Again, either show those posts that told us (NSG General) that you contacted those agencies you posted before Mur's post, or just say "I am in contact with those agencies."

Yet again, I never said she was remiss in not seeing something. I said there were things she didn't know about and that she assumed.

She responded by saying "I've made no assumptions".

You're argument doesn't seem to reflect examination of what either I've said or her.

be fair, can you show me where you posted that you did get in contact with various groups and agencies?

that is those posted before Mur's comment?
Thanks, JuNii, but I think he seems to have a "bug up his ass" about me tonight, and nothing that can be said on the subject of me is going to satisfy him, apparently. Better for everyone else to pretend it's just not happening, and hopefully, he'll get bored and drop it.

well, just posting your narrative about the conversation with no reference as to WHO you are posting in response to does so defenately point to Murv's comment about letting your "Serb friend post for you". :rolleyes:

Again, its on topic and relates to a post just a few posts back, which anybody making even a rudimentary attempt to keep up with the thread would've seen. Murv seemed to like his view of things, and even if she didn't, I can post it without it having to be a response to anything. Its intrinsically on topic.

I can see that even when I'm fairly polite, you're going to be snotty.

So, a Serbian friend of mine who lived in the mountains for a time has given me some more advice. He keeps calling me some Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce. He won't tell me what it means, but based on context, I think it means either "City Buffoon Who Goes to Forest" or "Disposable Landmine Detector".

He gave a few pieces of advice. One, he says instead of the .17 HMR bolt action with the long bull barrel, I should switch to a shorter, lighter, break-open single shot that switches out barrels between a small caliber round and a shotgun barrel. I looked, they aren't very expensive, but its a different rifle that I haven't practiced with.

He also claims that food won't be my problem because I am "So fat, even other Americans look at you and say look at fat motherfucker." He claims I couldn't starve to death in five days, that I will die of dehydration first. I told him I might be so malnourished I can't walk out, he says he's seen Serbian-Word-I-Can't-Pronounce walk out starving after longer than that.

He also claims "You won't go too much in, because you go like pregnant cow when new cow is soon. Half day hike for you is half hour walk for soldier, if he carries other soldier."

So, apparently, I'll be needing to pick a spot not too far from the vehicle.
your friend is very wise.

i have come to a similar conclusion only without any serbian words to describe it.

but I am asking you to show where you posted that you contacted anyone or agencies HERE in this thread. if YOU'RE going to yell or berate someone for making assumptions, then show how those assumptions are unfounded.

I assumed you were going within a month (and you confirmed that assumption true), and I also assumed you were going during winter/spring thaw (another assumption you confirmed true) add those confirmations with you saying first that you were going with a friend then amending it to now say your friend is only going with you to map the place out but not actually camp with you. and you can see where anyone can 'assume' that you have NOT gotten in contact with any agencies because you didn't say you did before Murv's 'assumption'.

and yes, I had those assumptions, as you can find during our conversation about Winter survival. ;)

Again, either show those posts that told us (NSG General) that you contacted those agencies you posted before Mur's post, or just say "I am in contact with those agencies."

I don't understand why you're arguing. You agree 100% with Baldwin, you say it is an assumption (whether it is well founded or not is irrelevant), he says it is an assumption. Mura says she didn't assume anything, so surely you should be arguing with her.

Thanks, JuNii, but I think he seems to have a "bug up his ass" about me tonight, and nothing that can be said on the subject of me is going to satisfy him, apparently. Better for everyone else to pretend it's just not happening, and hopefully, he'll get bored and drop it.

Now who is flattering themselves?

Mur, you posted something containing the assumption that I didn't contact, I dispelled that assumption in response, explaining why it was false.

You claimed you made no assumptions and said nothing false, I show where clearly you did.

JuNii now wants to argue that its a well-founded assumption, moving your goalposts for you.

You can pretend all of that is not happening, but I'm not going to grow "bored" refuting demonstrably false statements.

As a courtesy, though, please clarify. Muravyets is claiming she made "no" assumptions. JuNii is trying to claim it was a good assumption.

I will happily discuss whether assuming I never called after previously mentioning all my research is a good assumption or not, but first, may it be understood that even a well founded assumption is still an assumption, and can still be false?

I don't understand why you're arguing. You agree 100% with Baldwin, you say it is an assumption (whether it is well founded or not is irrelevant), he says it is an assumption. Mura says she didn't assume anything, so surely you should be arguing with her.

Thank you for actually reading both what I and Mur said before stepping in the middle of it. It makes a big difference.

Thank you for actually reading both what I and Mur said before stepping in the middle of it. It makes a big difference.

I guess it's one of the few benefits of being bored and having nothing to do other than lurking NSG. :D

your friend is very wise.

i have come to a similar conclusion only without any serbian words to describe it.

We actually talked quite a bit. He was kind enough to intersperse bits of actual advice between his comments like "Consider going to place with coyote. More meat, easier to catch." and I say "Thanks" and he says "I mean more meat for them, easier to catch you."

I guess it's one of the few benefits of being bored and having nothing to do other than lurking NSG. :D

It'll be interesting to see whether they go back and edit, ignore it, or actually admit that they're contradicting one another.

Its funny, I'm the one with bug up my ass for responding to an incorrect piece of information posted about me and my reasoning, on a thread about my trip, yet Mur is the one who makes the big show of ignoring then doesn't, and keeps coming back.

The beautiful thing is, I even said "There are things you don't know about, you're assuming", and I'm told "well, well, show me where you posted that before!" by one and "I made no assumptions" by the other.

It'll be interesting to see whether they go back and edit, ignore it, or actually admit that they're contradicting one another.

This is why I don't put you on real ignore. Because when you think a person's back is turned you say shit that is tantamount to calling them liars. You imply we are stupid, we have bad personalities, and now you suggest we would alter the record dishonestly over something that doesn't matter to anyone but you. You are out of line. I said what I meant. I have zero intention of changing any of it. I made no mistakes. I am not in some kind of a team with JuNii, so we have no need to coordinate our statements. You are doing nothing at this point but insulting us. Stop talking about me, and I'll stop talking to you. Thank you.

Again, I never claimed that I posted it previously. I pointed out that she made the assumption. Yet you stated
Yet again, you're making a lot of assumptions and there are things you don't know about. Things [you] don't know about. really? like what?
I have contacted several State, Federal, and and even a few County group that handle wildlife management areas. That's been a big part of how I'm choosing local, and why I'm looking at different spots than I initially was.

I'm already getting e-mail responses back from various groups, including State Departments of Wildlife, because I wanted to confirm that their web information was updated on what game you can hunt and when.you are stating that she didn't know you made those calls and thus making assumptions.
Yet YOU didn't inform us that you did call around. especially since 42 posts before that... you know about 18 hours difference,
you said
I can travel for this. My friend is up for the first part, like a road trip, then I go back on my own.

I was originally thinking anywhere between California and Colorado, because I've winter camped in Colorado (with people, though), but now I'm thinking between California and Georgia, and staying generally to the South.

Texas isn't looking too bad. Now I don't know about you, but that indicates YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING. so how are we to KNOW that you called all those national parks within those states?

If you want to claim now that its somehow a well-founded assumption, well, given that previously I had mentioned research about mine shafts, hunting regulations, unprotected species, etc, its not all that well founded.

But, JuNii, even if it were, Muravyets claim was the she "made no assumptions". Please, I'm politely asking, go back and look. She claimed she made no assumptions at all. If you want to change her claim to "she made a well-founded assumption", we can debate that, but that's not what she said. Please, whatever acrimony there is here, go back and look. that's right, because YOUR posts led us to beleive you knew very little about camping. mainly because in our expereince, you're packing alot of things YOU DON'T NEED. especially if the goal is to 'commune with nature'.

Actually, going within a month was stated in the very first post as likely. I know its a big thread, but it was there. I later said it may be two months. But I also repeatedly mentioned several aspects of my research, including checking on hunting regs, etc. That would naturally include contact with local agencies.
wrong, you said What I'm thinking is, before school really gets going, heading out to some national park or something, and live outdoors for a week.

so where did you state Going within a month. if a person decides to skip a semester, then school won't really get going until the summer session.

Then only after seeing how much prep time is needed you stated.
Orginally, yes, it was for within a month, but because of some good advice I've gotten, I might be twice that or more.
which means you really don't know much about camping. that is dangerious for someone to "commun with nature" if they were unaware what is needed to just go camping. So it seems our conclusion that you didn't know much about camping seemed well founded and NOT an assumption.

Yet again, I never said she was remiss in not seeing something. I said there were things she didn't know about and that she assumed. and why didn't we know about it? because you withheld information. either by accident, in which your statements of "not knowing all the facts about you" is unfounded, or deliberate which makes it your fault because it's deliberate action.

She responded by saying "I've made no assumptions". she and I didn't. I came to the conclusion (not assumption) that you are new to camping. What conclusion she came to is for her to say

You're argument doesn't seem to reflect examination of what either I've said or her.oh, I've examined both of your arguments. for someone who constantly tries to talk about communion, you are damned quick to turn this into a debate thread. this sprig of 'spatting' is about murv making assumptions.

I don't understand why you're arguing. You agree 100% with Baldwin, you say it is an assumption (whether it is well founded or not is irrelevant), he says it is an assumption. Mura says she didn't assume anything, so surely you should be arguing with her.

not really. see, Baldwin is saying Murv was making an Assumption WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS.

yet those 'facts' were never made public on this thread.

all I asked was when were those facts made public. if you read his first reply to Murv. it was of the stance that Murv's advice to call those park agencies was basied on the Assumption that he didn't.

you are stating that she didn't know you made those calls and thus making assumptions.

It's hardly an issue if you assume someone doesn't have psychic powers and isn't stalking you.

This is why I don't put you on real ignore. Because when you think a person's back is turned you say shit that is tantamount to calling them liars.

Since I knew at that point that you didn't really have me on ignore, I didn't really think your back was turned, did I? I can tell you're angry, but what you're saying there doesn't make sense, since I knew by the time of that post that you weren't really ignoring me, so I didn't think your "back was turned".


You imply we are stupid, we have bad personalities, and now you suggest we would alter the record dishonestly over something that doesn't matter to anyone but you.

It seems to matter to another on the thread, who caught logical fallacy as quickly as I did.

You said yourself, this was a place for arguing. Sometimes the person you're talking to will care when you contradict yourself, and point out the error as it applies to your premise.

Its as if you're playing chess and the other player sees you make an illegal move and points it out, you rail "This doen't matter to anyone but you!"


You are out of line. Stop talking about me, and I'll stop talking to you. Thank you.

But you didn't stop talking about me when you said you put me on ignore and didn't, did you?

You made claims about my reasoning (your own implication about my intellect) based on an assumption, and when I correct it, you claim you made no assumption. I clearly, repeatedly demonstrate that you did, you don't seem to be able to respond to that.

JuNii then comes in to defend you, saying you made a well-founded assumption, clearly contradicting even the person he's trying to defend, and if I dare point that out, I'm out of line?

So, when you actually do stop talking about me and making assumptions about my plans to everyone else, I'll stop responding by pointing out your false assumptions.

yet those 'facts' were never made public on this thread.


That's the point...

It'll be interesting to see whether they go back and edit, ignore it, or actually admit that they're contradicting one another.

Its funny, I'm the one with bug up my ass for responding to an incorrect piece of information posted about me and my reasoning, on a thread about my trip, yet Mur is the one who makes the big show of ignoring then doesn't, and keeps coming back.

The beautiful thing is, I even said "There are things you don't know about, you're assuming", and I'm told "well, well, show me where you posted that before!" by one and "I made no assumptions" by the other.

and if you notice, we are arguing two seperate things.

I'm not arguing the assumptions (tho I haven't made any, I've drawn conclusions from your posts.) I'm arguing the fact that as you said, "we made assumptions about things YOU did that we don't know about."

All I asked is for you to show us where that information was posted.

not really. see, Baldwin is saying Murv was making an Assumption WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS.

She didn't know the facts.


yet those 'facts' were never made public on this thread.

That's why she didn't know the facts. Yet she assumed the answer without getting the facts. She did make an assumption.


all I asked was when were those facts made public. if you read his first reply to Murv. it was of the stance that Murv's advice to call those park agencies was basied on the Assumption that he didn't.

I am of the same stance. She made an assumption. She repeatedly claims she did not.

And that's where you are contradicting even the person you're defending. She claims she made "no assumptions". She was extremely emphatic about that. JuNii, please, go back and back and look. I'm honestly begging at this point.

JuNii then comes in to defend you, saying you made a well-founded assumption, clearly contradicting even the person he's trying to defend, and if I dare point that out, I'm out of line?

whoa... back up. I'm not defending her. I'm asking a seperate question.

Yet you stated
Things [you] don't know about. really? like what?
you are stating that she didn't know you made those calls and thus making assumptions.

Yes. You've also said you are of the "stance" that she's making an assumption.


Yet YOU didn't inform us that you did call around. especially since 42 posts before that... you know about 18 hours difference,
you said
Now I don't know about you, but that indicates YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING. so how are we to KNOW that you called all those national parks within those states?

But in all the research I've mentioned, how do you know I didn't? And more so, even if it were a "founded" assumption, its still an assumption, and Mur repeatedly said she made "no assumptions.


that's right, because YOUR posts led us to beleive you knew very little about camping. mainly because in our expereince, you're packing alot of things YOU DON'T NEED. especially if the goal is to 'commune with nature'.

Which hardly means I didn't call around. She didn't know either way, and she assumed. You've said so yourself. Problem is, she's said the opposite.


wrong, you said

so where did you state Going within a month. if a person decides to skip a semester, then school won't really get going until the summer session.

Now you're assuming I'm skipping a semester. I'll politely say I'm not, and there was no reason to think I was.


Then only after seeing how much prep time is needed you stated.

which means you really don't know much about camping. that is dangerious for someone to "commun with nature" if they were unaware what is needed to just go camping. So it seems our conclusion that you didn't know much about camping seemed well founded and NOT an assumption.

and why didn't we know about it? because you withheld information. either by accident, in which your statements of "not knowing all the facts about you" is unfounded, or deliberate which makes it your fault because it's deliberate action.

As has been explained, I never claimed to have given the information, either that I had or hadn't. She assumed I hadn't, I dispelled that assumption, she claimed "I made NO assumptions". You keep ignoring that.

As for "deliberately withholding", where do you think I got the game regs and other things that I looked into, about unprotected species, etc?


she and I didn't. I came to the conclusion (not assumption) that you are new to camping. What conclusion she came to is for her to say

oh, I've examined both of your arguments. for someone who constantly tries to talk about communion, you are damned quick to turn this into a debate thread. this sprig of 'spatting' is about murv making assumptions.

My newness to camping is not the conclusion I'm taking issue with. Never did.

She assumed I hadn't called. You're arguing its a reasonable assumption, which I'll discuss with you, but she claims she made no assumption at all. I implore you to go back and look, because you've honestly missed some of it.


JuNii, you yourself have said, Mur made an assumption. She has roundly claimed she made no assumption. By both what you and I are saying, she's wrong in the claim that she made no assumption.

whoa... back up. I'm not defending her. I'm asking a seperate question.

If you don't see where the tone and content of what you're saying is a defense, okay. You're not defending her.

What you are doing is saying that she made a well-founded assumption. She claims she made no assumption. That's my central point. Thus, you are showing what she is saying to have been incorrect. Hydelsand is actually right.

That's the point...
and that post about making assumptions could be considered trolling.
She didn't know the facts.
no one except you did.
That's why she didn't know the facts. Yet she assumed the answer without getting the facts. She did make an assumption. what answer did you think she assumed?

And that's where you are contradicting even the person you're defending. She claims she made "no assumptions". She was extremely emphatic about that. JuNii, please, go back and back and look. I'm honestly begging at this point. I am not defending her. an assumption on your part. I'm asking a seperate question.

the problem with text, is that the emotions behind the text is not seen. your post about making assumptions without knowing the facts, same as your post to me about 'reading the thread' can be considered trolling and baiting since you were asking for advice and experience. bascially what you did was ask for advice, give some replies and the moment one set of advice is repeated, you pounce with a "you really need to read the thread".

Murv gave sensible advice since you stated you were not sure where you were going, not even what type of terrain you were looking into. and your reply is basically 'you don't know anything.' (remember, text does not convey tone and remembe how heated your other argument got.)

Remember my suggestions on posting? again, a simple "I am contacting them" would be less baiting than what you did reply.

by stating that some people are making assumptions without the facts means the facts are readily available. hence why I asked for those facts.

you admitted those facts are not readily available, thus really, everyone here is posting without knowing all the facts.

should we, from now on, demand 100% information from you before carrying on?

we can do that you know.

and if you notice, we are arguing two seperate things.

I'm not arguing the assumptions (tho I haven't made any, I've drawn conclusions from your posts.) I'm arguing the fact that as you said, "we made assumptions about things YOU did that we don't know about."

All I asked is for you to show us where that information was posted.

I've explained multiple times, I'm not claiming the information was posted.

I even said: There are things you don't know about. You are assuming things.

Thus, I've acknowledged from the beginning that she had no information about whether I'd called or not. I'd posted several things indicating I'd researched local regs in several areas about small game, etc.

I stand by my statement. Muravyet's statements reflect that there were things she didn't know about and she was making assumptions.

If you're saying "it was a well-founded assumption", just remember, she claimed she made "no assumptions", so you are demonstrating her to be incorrect, on exactly the same point I claim she is incorrect.

Since I knew at that point that you didn't really have me on ignore, I didn't really think your back was turned, did I? I can tell you're angry, but what you're saying there doesn't make sense, since I knew by the time of that post that you weren't really ignoring me, so I didn't think your "back was turned".

...

So, when you actually do stop talking about me and making assumptions about my plans to everyone else, I'll stop responding by pointing out your false assumptions.
JuNii's argument is sound in its own right. IF I had actualy been making an assumption about your actions, it would have been a reasonable assumption for the reasons he explains. So even if you choose to read that one statement about parks being called in isolation, without any reference to anything else in the thread, your criticism of me for having made an assumption is baseless. You yourself created an impression that would naturally lead a reasonable person to make such an assumption.

But what JuNii is not doing -- very wisely -- is involving himself in the rest of your melodrama about me, so he is not viewing your assumptions accusations in the context of all the other assumptions you have accused me of making, nor my earlier responses to those accusations.

I, however, am looking at it in that context, and because of that, I conclude that this is just a continuation of the tantrum you have been throwing at me ever since I made a throwaway wisecrack about your wife having a divorce lawyer.

Way back when you first took exception to that, I told you specifically that I was just making up fictions to illustrate what I thought about your camping plan. Thus, my comments were not assumptions. They were knowing fictions (EDIT: fictions meant as sarcastic jokes, by the way). I told you that. You chose to ignore that -- or maybe you called me a liar about it, who can keep track of your complaints anymore? -- and rather just keep on bitching at me.

Now, frankly, I shouldn't have had to tell it to someone as intelligent as you at all. Anyone who was told "those remarks are not assumptions" and who took a minute to reread the remarks and think about it -- ask themselves, "how is it possible that these remarks might not be assumptions?" -- should have been able to figure it out for themselves. But I DID explain it to you. I've explained it to you twice now. Your continued insistence on yelling at me about something I am not doing suggests to me that your only interest in pursuing this is to pick, press and escalate a fight with me. That suggestion is strengthened by the insulting remarks you have been making about my personality and intellectual abilities.

So, as I said, I made no assumptions about you. Even the last remark, about why you were talking to us instead of to park rangers was NOT an assumption about your actions.

And no, I'm not going to explain how. Figure it out for yourself. Quit flinging poo at me long enough to do that.

and that post about making assumptions could be considered trolling.


Eh? I'm not getting this, I don't see where the confusion is:

Mura said x, without knowing x. The only way for her to know x beforehand is if a) Mura is psychic, b) Mura stalks Baldwin, or c) Baldwin tells you.

Since a) and b) are obviously not true, we are left with c), which is also not true as you have said.

Thus she made an assumption.

Therefore you agree with Baldwin.

Where is the confusion? And what part of that is trolling?

and that post about making assumptions could be considered trolling.

no one except you did.
what answer did you think she assumed?

That I didn't call or check. She did assume that. You even said you're of the stance she assumed that.


the problem with text, is that the emotions behind the text is not seen. your post about making assumptions without knowing the facts, same as your post to me about 'reading the thread' can be considered trolling and baiting since you were asking for advice and experience. bascially what you did was ask for advice, give some replies and the moment one set of advice is repeated, you pounce with a "you really need to read the thread".

Murv gave sensible advice since you stated you were not sure where you were going, not even what type of terrain you were looking into. and your reply is basically 'you don't know anything.' (remember, text does not convey tone and remembe how heated your other argument got.)

Remember my suggestions on posting? again, a simple "I am contacting them" would be less baiting than what you did reply.

by stating that some people are making assumptions without the facts means the facts are readily available. hence why I asked for those facts.

So...when I say "she didn't have the facts", you take that to mean I'm claiming the facts were readily available?

There are all sorts of situations where people don't have the facts, often including BECAUSE the facts aren't readily available.

"You don't have the facts" doesn't have to mean"You don't have the facts and they were readily available".

It can just mean "You don't have the facts", which in this case, was true.


you admitted those facts are not readily available, thus really, everyone here is posting without knowing all the facts.

But not posting conclusions about whether I called. Nobody else here made that assumption.


should we, from now on, demand 100% information from you before carrying on?

we can do that you know.

Not at all. But if you make an assumption specifically about what I've done or haven't done, maybe try to get the facts first by asking, or instead understand that what you are then making is an assumption.

She claimed she made "no assumptions". That was incorrect. That was all I'm saying.

I will try to be clear on this point:

If somebody said on NSG "You haven't done X",

I would say "You don't have all the facts, you're making an assumption."

That doesn't mean I'm ever claiming that "X" information was available. I'm claiming they proceeded without that information.

If they respond "I made no assumptions", they then become wrong.

JuNii's argument is sound in its own right. IF I had actualy been making an assumption about your actions, it would have been a reasonable assumption for the reasons he explains. So even if you choose to read that one statement about parks being called in isolation, without any reference to anything else in the thread, your criticism of me for having made an assumption is baseless. You yourself created an impression that would naturally lead a reasonable person to make such an assumption.

So, any time you contradict yourself, you'll just decide one part of it is "isolated" and that makes it not a contradiction? You said you couldn't understand why I wasn't doing X. That clearly contains the assumption that I didn't do X. If you wanted to know, you could've asked, but instead, you went forward without the information and arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

Then you said you made "no assumptions" which even JuNii's position shows isn't true.


But what JuNii is not doing -- very wisely -- is involving himself in the rest of your melodrama about me, so he is not viewing your assumptions accusations in the context of all the other assumptions you have accused me of making, nor my earlier responses to those accusations.

What JuNii is doing is ignoring that you said you made "no assumptions". If he wants to admit you were wrong in that statement, great. If not, he's going on about what you and I said without looking at what you and I said.



I, however, am looking at it in that context, and because of that, I conclude that this is just a continuation of the tantrum you have been throwing at me ever since I made a throwaway wisecrack about your wife having a divorce lawyer.

Way back when you first took exception to that, I told you specifically that I was just making up fictions to illustrate what I thought about your camping plan. Thus, my comments were not assumptions. They were knowing fictions (EDIT: fictions meant as sarcastic jokes, by the way). I told you that. You chose to ignore that -- or maybe you called me a liar about it, who can keep track of your complaints anymore? -- and rather just keep on bitching at me.

Now, frankly, I shouldn't have had to tell it to someone as intelligent as you at all. Anyone who was told "those remarks are not assumptions" and who took a minute to reread the remarks and think about it -- ask themselves, "how is it possible that these remarks might not be assumptions?" -- should have been able to figure it out for themselves. But I DID explain it to you. I've explained it to you twice now. Your continued insistence on yelling at me about something I am not doing suggests to me that your only interest in pursuing this is to pick, press and escalate a fight with me. That suggestion is strengthened by the insulting remarks you have been making about my personality and intellectual abilities.

So, as I said, I made no assumptions about you. Even the last remark, about why you were talking to us instead of to park rangers was NOT an assumption about your actions.

And no, I'm not going to explain how. Figure it out for yourself. Quit flinging poo at me long enough to do that.

You are assuming this is about that divorce comment. I can honestly say I had forgotten you had made that comment, you don't have to believe me.

I have no way of proving to you that I actually had forgotten that comment, but I know that I had. Yet you've really run with that ball. You've lost a lot of credibility in my book, Mur. I don't expect you to care, but at this point, I'm politely asking you to leave the thread. I know I can't make you, but I'm asking.

Nature's overrated. Those little seed pods with the burrs that stick to your pantlegs are annoying as hell. Stick to your computer.

I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure I love you

But in all the research I've mentioned, how do you know I didn't?simple, you never mentioned it.

when giving advice, which would you prefere, the advice giver making an assumption that you would know as much as the giver or not at all?

Which hardly means I didn't call around. but doesn't convey any information that you did either. remember when I said, Information put out is for all?

Now you're assuming I'm skipping a semester. I'll politely say I'm not, and there was no reason to think I was. and now YOU'RE making the assumption that I made that assumption. so now you're making assumptions without all the facts. I gave an example of how your post could be interpreted. since for most universities, SCHOOL already started.

As has been explained, I never claimed to have given the information, either that I had or hadn't. actually, it did. your claim with "witout knowing the facts" means the facts are available.
ok, so did you provide that information? no? then you didn't. and for the record, I don't think her "assumption" was about the information. that was my assumption. because how your post sounded (remember, about text) to me, it sounded like that information was there.

As for "deliberately withholding", where do you think I got the game regs and other things that I looked into, about unprotected species, etc? from the state department of ag/fish/wildlife, which is just ONE facet of what Murv suggested.

My newness to camping is not the conclusion I'm taking issue with. Never did. yet when redundant advice is given... how quick the 'read the thread' response comes out. [being sarcastic here.] :D

She assumed I hadn't called. You're arguing its a reasonable assumption, which I'll discuss with you, but she claims she made no assumption at all. I implore you to go back and look, because you've honestly missed some of it. and if you read my post, it was a conclusion reached by your own statements. if that conclusion was wrong, instead of accusing someone of making assumptions without the facts, all you could've said was "I am."

again you know you didn't state you were calling around for camping advice so you know that any assumptions about you not calling would be wrong. yet instead of just plain speak, you take the tone that can be viewed as condesending.


JuNii, you yourself have said, Mur made an assumption. She has roundly claimed she made no assumption. By both what you and I are saying, she's wrong in the claim that she made no assumption. and I am not Mur. you can keep saying this, but the fact is that Mur is arguing her point, I'm arguing mine. and again, my point is that you berated her for drawing a conclusion without all the information. Information YOU did not provide. the fact that I am saying its berating is because that is the tone I percieve. now you can say it's not ment to be berating but like your comment to me about reading the thread, the simpler, straight forward answer stands less chances of being mis interpreted.

I am NOT arguing what Mur said is an assumption or not. I am saying your post can be percieved to take a hostile tone.

Now you can keep adding "I'm being polite here" or you can modify your posting habit to reduce anymore misunderstandings.

actually, it did. your claim with "witout knowing the facts" means the facts are available.

No it doesn't.

simple, you never mentioned it.

when giving advice, which would you prefere, the advice giver making an assumption that you would know as much as the giver or not at all?

I'd prefer she not take as fact that I didn't call. If the facts aren't available, she can ask, or say "I don't know if he called or not", which would be true.


but doesn't convey any information that you did either. remember when I said, Information put out is for all?

and now YOU'RE making the assumption that I made that assumption. so now you're making assumptions without all the facts. I gave an example of how your post could be interpreted. since for most universities, SCHOOL already started.

I said before school "really" gets started. That's important.


actually, it did. your claim with "witout knowing the facts" means the facts are available.

Since the rest of your post is heavily predicated on this, I'll simply dispell that.


We can agree on the following statements yes?

As to the precise mass of every star in the galaxy, I don't have the facts.

Any comment I make about them would be without knowing the facts.

The facts are not readily available.


There are many situations where the facts are not readily available, where, in many cases exactly because of that, they are proceeding without the facts.

Thus, you're premise that saying "without the facts" means "the facts are readily available" is demonstrably false.

Eh? I'm not getting this, I don't see where the confusion is:

Mura said x, without knowing x. The only way for her to know x beforehand is if a) Mura is psychic, b) Mura stalks Baldwin, or c) Baldwin tells you.

Since a) and b) are obviously not true, we are left with c), which is also not true as you have said.

Thus she made an assumption.

Therefore you agree with Baldwin.

Where is the confusion? And what part of that is trolling?
actually, Mur said X (calling the agencies/Group/etc)
BfC said why are you saying that when you didn't know about Y (that he did)
even tho all information from A - W does not reverence Y.

as for trolling? this isn't the first conflict between Mur and BfC. the fact that BfC has stated repeatedly "Why aren't you ignoring me" can also be considered baiting or trolling. but really it's up to the mods. which is why I said "Could be considered" in reference to me (a non mod) not that it is/was.

<snip>
and now YOU'RE making the assumption that I made that assumption. so now you're making assumptions without all the facts. I gave an example of how your post could be interpreted. since for most universities, SCHOOL already started.
<snip>
.

Actually, the majority of universities around the world don't go back until February

actually, Mur said X (calling the agencies/Group/etc)
BfC said why are you saying that when you didn't know about Y (that he did)
even tho all information from A - W does not reverence Y.


Why is that problematic? Think about it.

actually, Mur said X (calling the agencies/Group/etc)
BfC said why are you saying that when you didn't know about Y (that he did)
even tho all information from A - W does not reverence Y.

When X and Y are opposites, that is Y = not X, they do reference one another.

And I never claimed A - W referenced it, I'm claiming she had no information either way, yet still came to an assumption.


as for trolling? this isn't the first conflict between Mur and BfC. the fact that BfC has stated repeatedly "Why aren't you ignoring me" can also be considered baiting or trolling. but really it's up to the mods. which is why I said "Could be considered" in reference to me (a non mod) not that it is/was.

JuNii, Muravyets started the business about ignoring me, went on about it, the finally said she was ignoring me. Its earlier in the thread. SHE brought up the "ignore" deal. I'm simply asking why she didn't follow through with it.

I don't expect you to care, but at this point, I'm politely asking you to leave the thread. I know I can't make you, but I'm asking.
There is not a single polite thing in anything you have said to me since that earlier post. You have done nothing but find various ways to say that I am stupid, that I have a bad personality, that I lack personal discipline, and that I am a liar, right up to the post I snipped above.

All I did was exactly the same as others have done here, which was have fun with your camping plan. Others have said nearly the exact same things to you as I have, but you have not spent page upon page verbally abusing them. You have singled me out for this treatment.

I have generally respected you and enjoyed your contributions to NSG for your intelligence and your humor. However, it is clear you have no corresponding respect for me. Apparently, you think so badly of me that you cannot even bring yourself not to hijack your own thread for the sake of verbally attacking me. Since it is clear you either lack the ability or the desire to try to find a way to be civil towards me going forward, I assure you I will do my best never to speak to you again -- here or in any other thread.

HOWEVER, I ADD THIS CAVEAT: If you want me to leave you alone, then I will ask you to return the favor and leave me alone as well. Do not talk about me or my posts to others. Do not comment on anything I post that is not addressed to you. Forget that I exist, and I will not do anything to remind you of it. If you will agree to this right now, in this thread, then we can go our ways. If you will not, then I will take any further comments from you to or about me as an expression of hostility towards me and an attempt to lure me into breaking the silence that you demanded from me.

The offer is total mutual ignoring in all threads, or not. EDIT: This would be forever, by the way.

I await your answer.

I will try to be clear on this point:

If somebody said on NSG "You haven't done X",

I would say "You don't have all the facts, you're making an assumption."

now BfC. what's wrong with this alternative.
If somebody said on NSG "You haven't done X",

I would say "I did. I'm waiting for their response."

there, you see what I did? I took the statement of "You Haven't done X" and with a simple reply, I didn't suggest anyone not having anything, nor accusing anyone of anything. this is what I'm trying to tell you. This was what I was trying to tell you in our head butt.

some of your statements can be interpreted as inflamatory. Whether you meant it to be inflamatory or not, it doesn't matter. because TEXT does not convey tone, choice of words are very important. something I learned the hard way. this is the second bruhaha you're getting into with Murv.

JuNii, Muravyets started the business about ignoring me, went on about it, the finally said she was ignoring me. Its earlier in the thread. SHE brought up the "ignore" deal. I'm simply asking why she didn't follow through with it.
and by constantly picking on it, you're not helping the situation.

Actually, the majority of universities around the world don't go back until February

not the point.

There is not a single polite thing in anything you have said to me since that earlier post. You have done nothing but find various ways to say that I am stupid, that I have a bad personality, that I lack personal discipline, and that I am a liar, right up to the post I snipped above.

All I did was exactly the same as others have done here, which was have fun with your camping plan. Others have said nearly the exact same things to you as I have, but you have not spent page upon page verbally abusing them. You have singled me out for this treatment.

Muravyets, you are reading A LOT into this about what I think of your intelligence, personality, discipline, etc. I've been attacking your arguments, not you.

Mur, its like when you said "You just to xxx when people's backs are turned", yet that was at a point when you had shown that you didn't have me on ignore. So I didn't think you had your back turned, so your claim isn't really right. I'm hitting your argument, not you.


I have generally respected you and enjoyed your contributions to NSG for your intelligence and your humor. However, it is clear you have no corresponding respect for me. Apparently, you think so badly of me that you cannot even bring yourself not to hijack your own thread for the sake of verbally attacking me. Since it is clear you either lack the ability or the desire to try to find a way to be civil towards me going forward, I assure you I will do my best never to speak to you again -- here or in any other thread.

HOWEVER, I ADD THIS CAVEAT: If you want me to leave you alone, then I will ask you to return the favor and leave me alone as well. Do not talk about me or my posts to others. Do not comment on anything I post that is not addressed to you. Forget that I exist, and I will not do anything to remind you of it. If you will agree to this right now, in this thread, then we can go our ways. If you will not, then I will take any further comments from you to or about me as an expression of hostility towards me and an attempt to lure me into breaking the silence that you demanded from me.

The offer is total mutual ignoring in all threads, or not.

I await your answer.

Muravyets, you were here first, and you have more long term friends here than I do. That kind of mutual cold shoulder doesn't do anything for the forum. I'll just leave.

I never thought you were stupid, Muravyets. I think you're quick to anger, and you're made more so very quickly when a flaw in your argument is demonstrated.

And just so you know, the people that I think are "stupid" or have "bad personalities" are the ones I don't respond to at all. I engaged you because, when you aren't pissed or ignoring key points, you are a great deal brighter than I am. I mean that, I don't care if you don't believe me.



So, to those who posted things before I finished this, I'm not ignoring you, this is just my last post on nationstates.

I know I've said this, let's see.....Saint Curie, Hammurab, Jhahannam, Baldwin...okay, the Fourth time I've claimed I'm not coming back, but this time its actually for a good reason, and thus for good.

Neo Art, LG, Kat, Straughn, Intangelon, Hydesland, and the many others I'll forget to name, take care.

And no hard feelings, Muravyets. I honestly never did think you were stupid, and I do believe that you've been smarter and funnier than I have.

Adios, everybody!

(And to Daistallia, your bit about the SARs did really spur a lot of changes in my plans, so thank you.)

There is not a single polite thing in anything you have said to me
Hey there Murvy! You're so smart and sensitive! What good looking lady wouldn't go for you?

Baldwin on the other hand... what a prick. God I hate that guy! And ironically enough he also hates God. He's a Godless liberal and I say we all put him on ignore to protest his baby-killing, Bible-burning ways.

Muravyets, you are reading A LOT into this about what I think of your intelligence, personality, discipline, etc. I've been attacking your arguments, not you.

Mur, its like when you said "You just to xxx when people's backs are turned", yet that was at a point when you had shown that you didn't have me on ignore. So I didn't think you had your back turned, so your claim isn't really right. I'm hitting your argument, not you.



Muravyets, you were here first, and you have more long term friends here than I do. That kind of mutual cold shoulder doesn't do anything for the forum. I'll just leave.

I never thought you were stupid, Muravyets. I think you're quick to anger, and you're made more so very quickly when a flaw in your argument is demonstrated.

And just so you know, the people that I think are "stupid" or have "bad personalities" are the ones I don't respond to at all. I engaged you because, when you aren't pissed or ignoring key points, you are a great deal brighter than I am. I mean that, I don't care if you don't believe me.



So, to those who posted things before I finished this, I'm not ignoring you, this is just my last post on nationstates.

I know I've said this, let's see.....Saint Curie, Hammurab, Jhahannam, Baldwin...okay, the Fourth time I've claimed I'm not coming back, but this time its actually for a good reason, and thus for good.

Neo Art, LG, Kat, Straughn, Intangelon, Hydesland, and the many others I'll forget to name, take care.

And no hard feelings, Muravyets. I honestly never did think you were stupid, and I do believe that you've been smarter and funnier than I have.

Adios, everybody!

(And to Daistallia, your bit about the SARs did really spur a lot of changes in my plans, so thank you.)
So, you're so invested in fighting with me on NSG that you'd rather abandon the whole forum than stop it. Fine. Suit yourself.

Nooo! Come on Baldwin, so mura is pissed off at you, I'd disagree that constitutes a 'good reason this time'. :D

Why don't we both just apologize, admit mistakes were made, shake hands, kiss, and make up?

Hey there Murvy! You're so smart and sensitive! What good looking lady wouldn't go for you?

Baldwin on the other hand... what a prick. God I hate that guy! And ironically enough he also hates God. He's a Godless liberal and I say we all put him on ignore to protest his baby-killing, Bible-burning ways.
Thanks, VC. FYI, I'm a woman myself, and hetero -- though I have gotten hit on by my share of other women, and some of them were nice enough looking, I suppose -- and I'm also a God(Abrahamic)-less, baby-killing liberal. I've never burned a Bible, but I did use one for a coaster once.

But hey, A for effort. :D

Thanks, VC. FYI, I'm a woman myself, and hetero -- though I have gotten hit on by my share of other women, and some of them were nice enough looking, I suppose -- and I'm also a God(Abrahamic)-less, baby-killing liberal. I've never burned a Bible, but I did use one for a coaster once.

But hey, A for effort. :D

Don't be silly. I'm not stupid - there are no women on the internet.

Why don't we both just apologize, admit mistakes were made, shake hands, kiss, and make up?
I made my peace offer. Silence is golden, after all, and there would have been no more fighting or conflict, and we both would have been free to enjoy excellent debate and spamfests with everyone else on NSG. He rejected it. What is there left to do?

Don't be silly. I'm not stupid - there are no women on the internet.
Oh, right, I forgot. ;)

Oh, right, I forgot. ;)

You know, I'm a straight guy but it still gives me a boost in confidence if gay guys hit on me. I think my compliment stands!

You know, I'm a straight guy but it still gives me a boost in confidence if gay guys hit on me. I think my compliment stands!
Oh, definitely. It's always great to be told we're hot. :D I just meant I don't get hit on by so many women -- or don't notice them -- mostly because I'm focussed on the guys.

I made my peace offer. Silence is golden, after all, and there would have been no more fighting or conflict, and we both would have been free to enjoy excellent debate and spamfests with everyone else on NSG. He rejected it. What is there left to do?

Say I'm sorry and move on?

Say I'm sorry and move on?

Look, this is over, okay? He says he has left. I stated to him, and I stand by the statement, that he was engaging in a much greater level of hostility towards me than vice versa. I stand by my statement to him that he was the one who not only create the fight, but escalated it and refused to drop it. I believe and maintain that he deliberately said provoking things to get me to argue with him. I gave an explanation that should have smoothed over any ruffled feathers. He ignored it repeatedly. His posts seemed to increase in hostility as time went on.

All that being the case, especially that last sentence, it seemed to me that there was no way he was going to let this fight go, no matter what I apologized for or offered to do about it.

And frankly, he was hurting my feelings very, very much.

For those two reasons I decided that this was a person I cannot be online friends with (also because this is the second time he has done this with me, following a similar pattern). That is why I requested that he disengage with me altogether and permanently. You saw his response. What do you want me to do about it now?

EDIT: If he would rather leave the forum than just leave me alone, then what more is there to say about this? It can't be fixed now, but there's nothing left in it to carry on talking about.

EDIT: If he would rather leave the forum than just leave me alone, then what more is there to say about this? It can't be fixed now, but there's nothing left in it to carry on talking about.

I guarantee he's still reading the thread. Curiosity is a driving force of mankind, and he will not simply leave because he has said that he will. He may quit posting, but he has not quit reading.

That's right Baldwin, I see you.

I gave an explanation that should have smoothed over any ruffled feathers.

This is total bullshit btw.

This is total bullshit btw.

Yeah, she's all upset over this thread, this is a great thing to say. Was it really necessary to be mean? Say it outloud to your best friend or something. Didn't your mother ever tell you if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?

Yeah, she's all upset over this thread, this is a great thing to say. Was it really necessary to be mean? Say it outloud to your best friend or something. Didn't your mother ever tell you if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?

She's ignoring me, she can't see what I say. And I don't think it was being mean anyway, although I guess bullshit has negative connotations for some people. For me it's synonymous with nonsense, or untruth. I'm attacking the post, not the poster.

She's ignoring me, she can't see what I say. And I don't think it was being mean anyway, although I guess bullshit has negative connotations for some people. For me it's synonymous with nonsense, or untruth. I'm attacking the post, not the poster.

Bullshit doesn't have negative connotations for you?

I guess if she can't see it then its ok.

Erm, she can see your posts though, so if you're really worried, I guess you should delete your posts. :P Oh and by negative connotations, I meant in the sense that it doesn't say anything negative about the poster, just the post.

Yeah, she's all upset over this thread, this is a great thing to say. Was it really necessary to be mean? Say it outloud to your best friend or something. Didn't your mother ever tell you if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?
Thanks, but you don't have to worry about Hydesland upsetting me. He actually has been on my ignore list for months because a fight with him got so out of hand once that he tried to keep it going over three unrelated threads, trolling me from thread to thread. I haven't seen any of his posts since then unless someone else quotes him.

Thanks, but you don't have to worry about Hydesland upsetting me. He actually has been on my ignore list for months because a fight with him got so out of hand once that he tried to keep it going over three unrelated threads, trolling me from thread to thread. I haven't seen any of his posts since then unless someone else quotes him.

You're welcome. However, I think you should focus your negative energy into some sort of positive outcome. Do you have a hobby? Tomorrow, sit down and focus on it for a few hours instead of coming onto this forum.

Unrelated, I just saw a commercial for a reality TV show that challenges contestants to stay in solitary confinement for longer than the others. Dangerous? Absolutely. Entertaining? I have little doubt.

Erm, she can see your posts though, so if you're really worried, I guess you should delete your posts. :P
Hey, if it makes you look bad and me look good I view it as a positive post. :P

You're welcome. However, I think you should focus your negative energy into some sort of positive outcome. Do you have a hobby? Tomorrow, sit down and focus on it for a few hours instead of coming onto this forum.


I have lots of hobbies and lots of work to do, both of which I enjoy very much. My time on NSG is time spent multitasking, because I usually hang around here while waiting for my computer to finish doing something. Read a little, post a little, go do something else, repeat, get coffee. That's how my days go, unless it's nice out. Then I go outdoors. Or if a 3D live, real-time human or other creature seeks my attention. Then I turn the computer off.

And actually, I think ignoring Hydesland was the most positive thing I could have done. He and I used to get into fights all the time, but both of us have had a much more peaceful and fun time on NSG since we stopped talking to each other. Good fences make good neighbors. Sometimes you just have to accept that you don't get along with someone.