text:
SurvivingInfidelity.com Forum Archives
Need advice asap -,while WH is coming to the house
You are not logged in. Login here or register.
Duskpearl posted 1/19/2014 07:26 AM
Ok, so my WH moved out 5 weeks ago & the night he left he blamed me for his unhappiness & rewrote the history of our marriage to my detriment (please refer my original posts). Anyway, fast forward a week ago & I have seen him 3 times at our house & our conversations have varied from more hostility from him to us being able to have a normal conversation.
I'm very confused as my H is still giving me mixed signals, whether he realizes this or not is another thing but still what's up with that - the below is a summary of my confusion;
He wanted to take some photos of us that I said I would toss out if he did not want them - he said he does not regret the last 12 years (I said I did). Just a week ago he agreed with me when I said we should of broken up after our first year together. And he wanted me out of his life as soon as possible & wanted to fast track the divorce.
He keeps saying he has been unhappy for years yet when I pointed out to him that he said just a year ago that we are lucky to have met, he said that was probably how he felt at the time. He keeps moving the timeframe for when he was unhappy.
We had a few laughs, one at my expense about me finally getting my own car, the first for me at 43 years of age! He actually said "good on you baby". Why call me a pet name after he moved out 5 weeks ago? Seems odd to me, habit or not. One thing that he loved about me was my humor & wit, so I made sure today that he saw that funny side & we had a few laughs.
I told him he is messed up & having a mid life crisis he actually said do you think so. "I asked myself the same thing". He said that when he got his Harley "he was back", referring to how he felt when he had one in his 20's - if this is not a midlife crisis comment right there, what is?
Commented on my tan "you have some colour". Why is he even paying attention to what I look like since he is with the OW? And more importantly why let me know? Last week he commented on my weight loss (I did not need to lose any more weight).
Said I could contact him at anytime if I had any issues with my car. Again odd for someone who wants me out of there life asap.
He does not like it when I say something negative about our marriage but it is ok for him.
He said that it would be easier to deal with this if he hated me but he can't do it.
Said he was happy that we had "the talk"
The OW rang while we were talking & he ignored the phone call & continued talking for another 10 minutes or so. We spoke for about an hour all up.
It seems that in our case absence does not make the heart grow fonder as we had not seen eachother for a month & the first time we did see eachother he was hostile & blamed me for his cheating. Oh & he finally admitted for the first time that they are more than friends! Yet each time I have seen him since, he is mellowing slightly. To my credit with all the research I've been doing I have been nothing but cool & calm very unlike me. I have shown no anger, while he on the other hand, the cheater has been very short & swearing etc. I feel that he is currently revealing more than I am. Again, odd as he is usually so secretive.
My question is what is the best way for me to act if I want him to continue mellowing & realise the errors of his ways. Do I pull back & not always be home when he comes round or do I continue letting him see the new changed stronger me (I am getting counselling for anger issues stemming from my childhood). I have displayed no anger what so ever & some of our conversation was normal like he had not even left.
Am I clutching at nothing here? At the very least his actions show that he is one confused individual.......
TryingToReboot posted 1/19/2014 07:55 AM
I really am not the best person to be giving advice considering my situation and desires to have my life returned to some kind of normalcy. But what I've learned so far is that it's best to finds ways to disengage! And, by what you've posted you're doing pretty good at that so far. I admire how you've been able to keep your WH out of you life and have been moving on. I wish I had more inner strength to do the same. Anyway, I believe you're best path is to pursue NC. And that means to not let him see you, talk to you, let him in the house and any other means he uses to contact you! Ultimately what you need is for him to breakdown and come back on his knees begging for forgivness, anything short of that is unacceptable! If your relationship is to survive and become a healthy "shared" love for each other than you must distroy the old, broken, dysfunctional patterns that define who you and WH were.
If by some unlikely chance that your WH does breakdown then you'll have the chance for a future together. But, for now you must believe there iz NO future with him! As I've read here many times, he is a pod-person who will use ALL of the people around him to hide from himself! DON'T LET HIM USE YOU!!!
Like is said earlier, you've got a great start, you don't have to seee him anymore. Believe me when I say that is a blessing. Build you friends, network and build more. Keep him 100% away, leave him to his AP. The mear fact that his coming to see and talk to you is an indication that he may be having 2nd thoughts. If you give any sign that you're still there for him he WON'T change and will instead keep using you like he is using his AP. Don't let this happen.
P.S. I wisk I could practice what I preach....
solus sto posted 1/19/2014 10:48 AM
He left.
It's time to let him get a REAL feel for what leaving means.
* It means he doesn't get to come and go as he'd like. He left.
* It means he doesn't get to "share some laughs" with you. He left.
* It means he doesn't get the opportunity to tell you you're to blame for his unhappiness. He left.
* It means you don't discuss the relationship, because there isn't one. He left. (Your marriage is over, no matter what the outcome. He destroyed it. If you are to remain married, you will have to build a new marriage from the ground up.)
* It means he doesn't have the opportunity to admire your tan, or hair, or body. He left.
He's not going to "mellow" or "realize the error of his ways" if he's allowed to have his cake and eat it, too.
He has no motivation to change. He either finds you relatively calm and willing to "share a laugh," or upset. Both fulfill his needs, the first by showing him that what he did couldn't be all that bad, if you're able to laugh with him still, and the latter by showing him that you ARE that shrew who made him so unhappy, which permits him to justify his affair further.
There is nothing to talk about as long as he is still engaged in his affair.
In the Healing Library, under BS FAQs, there are instructions for the 180. It's very difficult, at first. Believe me, I know this; I was utterly incapable. But with practice, you will begin to see how much better a healthy detachment feels.
You can't control your husband. You can only control yourself.
Will he come back? I have no idea. But you can't really direct that outcome.
Thing is, he's gone now.
Let him have a taste of what that really means.
painfulpast posted 1/19/2014 10:56 AM
Please don't let him have all of the parts of you he enjoyed AND OW. Just do the 180. No long chats, no laughs. He left - that means no you for him.
Giving him you while he is with her will never let him miss you, because you're still there.
At this rate, if he is 'with' OW, you will become the BW and the OW. Don't create this mess. He left - you are gone.
Freeme posted 1/19/2014 12:02 PM
You are doing really well. I do believe he is getting to cake eat. When you share a joke and chat and create a normal setting it allows him to see you are his friend... He didn't do anything THAT wrong. or worse that plan B will be an option if things don't work out with the A.
He shouldn't beable to stop by when ever he want's -- and your shouldn't be waiting around for him.
Duskpearl posted 1/20/2014 07:04 AM
Thanks for all the honest replies, it helps me focus on reality!
I know his cheating should be enough for me to move on but I did not want to be yet another divorce statistic, it makes me feel like I have failed, even though he is the one who cheated.
Trying to reboot - thank you for your admiration but I don't think it's worthy as outwardly I'm portraying a stronger me but inside I am still the same betrayed person who is grieving the loss of a 10 yr marriage without the opportunity to repair it. You have given me very good advice. I have read your posts and think you are doing well & not giving yourself enough credit!
Solus Sto - You are so correct, HE left & here I am making it easy on him! Helping him to lose any guilt he may have. When I said he had lowered his standards with the OW, he had the nerve to say that he would be happy for me if I met someone. I replied & said I would be happy for you if you met her if we had broken up & we were not married. The guy has absolutely no idea & I question my sanity when I have a weak moment & want him back.
Painful past - I like your interpretation that as a BW if I remain in contact with him I end up the OW as well! Yep, he left I am gone. Time to stop wasting energy thinking about what he is doing & where I went wrong focus all my energy on the 180....
Freeme - yes, I agree I am making this too easy for him & the friendlier I am with him the easier this whole affair thing will be for him & he will not be feeling any regret what so ever!
I think my problem is kidding myself that I have moved on while hoping that he regrets what he has done & begs for my forgiveness. But that may not happen & even if it does, does he really deserve me? I know i am better than the OW, inside & out & know that i deserve better than my H but still i find this so painful. I told him I could never trust him again & he knows that. The most frustrating thing for me is that he refuses to compare himself to his cheating father as "nothing happened until he left, they were just friends, it was not planned, it just happened". He has no idea about emotional affairs or the fact that he no doubt slept with her within the first week of moving out while we are still married!
If I am to be honest with myself I know that we are better off without eachother & I am fearful of being alone. At 43, i feel too old to get back out on the dating scene. If only it happened when i was younger. It's the betrayal & rejection that hurts the most & the regret that we did not attempt to fix the 10 year marriage before he strayed. But I said to him at least I'll have no regrets down the track but he may as I wanted to try & fix the marriage, he didn't. That doubt will always be with him.
After reading the posts I realise my error of being too accessible & by me being friendly to him takes away his guilt - not what i want. I want this guilt to haunt him. But I also wanted him to see that I have changed & no longer angry like him as he said I would never change! He was angry when he arrived yesterday so i hope that is an indication of the reality he has created for himself. And me getting a car was a real eye opener for him. The shock on his face when he saw I got the car was priceless. I'm so glad I was there to see it & so was my sister in law. My family all said he would be shocked when i got the car but I did not see it as such a big deal, but it was! The next time he saw me he said none of the people he told could believe that I got a car. So here he is still talking about me to "other people", the woman he no longer wants in his life! I told him so as well.
Yesterday i told him he was complacent about life in general (he is not a doer or a leader) & he denied it. BUT just last week when I asked him why did he stay so long in an "unhappy marriage" his reply was that he was "complacent". The guy really does not know if he is Martha or Arthur! I can see in his face that he has regret & feels bad for what he has done but is still continuing the affair so the regret cannot be that strong. He has now apologised 3 times since he admitted to the affair. He said who knows if it will work out with this one but he may have been saying that for my benefit.
Supposedly all the lies he has told me have been to spare my feelings! I told him that i know so much more about his continual lies (which i do) but did not elaborate. He admitted that he can't get much past me as I'm too cluey. I took that as a compliment :)
Unfortunately, i can't stop him coming around at the moment as he is removing the rest of his belongings & he has agreed to maintain the house & get it in a saleable condition before we sell it. He would rather fix it up than for us to pay professionals.
I thank my brother for forcing me to get real & get him to get all his stuff & Harley out & stop using me & the house as a door mat. As he was spending every weekend with her shacked up in her unit in la la land while I looked after his pets. At the very least I have forced his fantasy into reality quicker than he anticipated. He now as to find time to set himself up in his mum's house, maintain our house & find time for the she bloke OW all the while working full time. He had the gall to tell me he was tired from all the running around he has been doing in the last week! He had it cushy with me as all he had to worry about was work & what to watch on tv! And he thought he was escaping such a bad life!
Duskpearl posted 1/23/2014 04:22 AM
Ok, so my H just drives past the house & 2 minutes later he sends me a text saying "Hi BS, I just drove past the house to put the bins out & they were already out. Leave them next time as they were heavy & I'll take them up. Thanks WH"
Like seriously, I can't trust him to keep our marriage vows but I should trust him to take the bins out! What part of him moving out of our home does he not get?
And "thanks" for what? Thanks in advance for letting me help you out so that i can offload some guilt. Oh well, there is no way I am going to relieve him of any guilt after the pain & heartache he has put me through. Needless to say I ignored the message
NeverAgain2013 posted 1/23/2014 09:30 AM
Look, you can't suck and blow at the same time. That's what he's been doing for WAY too long, now.
He moved out and is involved with the OW. That doesn't entitle to him to ANY of the previous comforts of home.
Or you.
That's like quitting one job for another job and then going back to your old desk a couple times a week just to sit there and still be a part of the old office.
No can do.
He MADE a choice. That doesn't mean he gets to have the OW as well as keeping his foot in your front door so he still has the satisfaction of knowing you're there waiting for him. Quite honestly, that's humiliating and degrading for you that he knows you'd take him back in a New York minute. That accomplishes absolutely NOTHING but giving him all the power to do as he pleases because he knows you're putty in his hands.
Why are you giving him one ounce of your power?
As long as he knows your door is always open should he call you and ask to come home, he ain't gonna do it. You're just an insurance policy to him right now. Hey, if he blows it with his side piece, he always has good old Duskpearl waiting in the wings, happy to have him back.
That's how you appear to him - whether he TELLS you that or not. It's how you appear to him.
There's no pride in that at all.
Seriously Duskpearl, you need to slam the door on this buffoon and take control of your life back. If you don't, you're always just going to appear desperate to him.
Cut him off at the knees. He chose another life - that means his old life should no longer be available to him. He hasn't even really experienced what his new life is like because you keep giving him access to his OLD one. Therefore, he can enjoy keeping one foot in BOTH.
Stop the insanity.
Cut him off at the knees and let him REALLY see the true results of the decision he chose to make.
Stop the flirting, the texting, the visits, the little trips down memory lane, the arguments about whose fault it was that he had his crap affair (and give him a message for ME - tell him to OWN HIS SHIT!), letting him cut your grass and put out your garbage and unclog your sink and every other little chore that he wants to feel 'needed' for - stop it ALL.
Go to a lawyer, find out exactly what you can expect, and shut this man out of your life.
If you really want him back, you need to DO this. What you're doing is NOT working for you. It's not.
[This message edited by NeverAgain2013 at 9:35 AM, January 23rd (Thursday)]
norabird posted 1/23/2014 09:39 AM
Good for you not answering the message! Keep it up and stay strong
Duskpearl posted 1/31/2014 04:14 AM
Opinions please -
My cousin sent the below message to my WH once she found out he was cheating (without my prior knowledge). His reply is also attached.
WH, I have been informed by X that you're having an affair. I'm waiting for BS to come back to me so I can at least get her side, not just from family members. I want to give you the same respect. Please have the same for me and reply honestly. I have always thought of you as a brother in law and always cherished when you and BS came to visit me in Hawaii. I remember how supportive you both were after X. And WH, i also remember my heart breaking for you when you told me about your fiancé cheating on you, how you discovered it, how you sat in your garage for 6 months crying in your beer. Knowing your dad did this frightens me to think you've turned into the same man. WH to think you now have done what your fiancé did to you to BS really makes me sad and angry. Angry that you could do that to my cousin, the one person that truly loved you and would have never cheated on you. I'm sad for you because it seems like you ended up with someone who has no self value or morals. She will, mark my words, do the same to you. Bleeps (and I can call her that given her behavior) don't change. We will as a family support BS if this ends up in divorce. You will not harass her or hinder her financially in this. Again I'm saddened by what I've heard and least expected this from you. I'm sorry your mum isn't here, I know that she would be the number one person ashamed by your behavior. Please have the decency to reply. She is my cousin and I love her dearly. We also loved you as a family member.
WH replied;
Thanks X, I have no interest in harming BS physically or with $$$$ we are on speaking terms & calm at the moment. Unfortunately people drift apart in life, the last thing I wanted to do was hurt BS, but you should know from your own past things happen. Comparing me to my father is completely wrong & in bad taste by you & BS family. My father had an affair for 7 years while he was still married. I left BS, OW was a friend that turned into something more after I left. I know none of you will believe this & I really don't care if you do but that's what happened. I'm not proud of the time factor here. And to put it in perspective for all of you I pursued her. Not the other way round. Please take care X. I know you all have BS best interests at heart, I knew long ago that when this day came I'd be turned on, so I except this email as you looking out for her. I do care for BS & always will, I just couldn't see myself spending the rest of my life with her, she has admitted the same to me also. I will always have fond memories of our holidays to Hawaii & catching up. Keep in touch if you want, I'll leave that one up to you. Regards WH
My cousin's reply to his reply;
WH, whether or not you pursed her is irrelevant. She knows you're married. I'm not going to name call her, but understand she is also in the wrong here. You telling me you pursued her confirms that you wanted more before you left BS. And you can see how that is wrong surely. No one is turning on you WH. I'm just stating the truth. Your dad cheated on your mum, I don't care for how long. The fact is he did. But surely there must be some heart left in you to see that her family loves her and will stand by her. And as for the other woman....,she is the one that has to live with the fact that she ruined a marriage. WH, I see misery for both of you cause one of you will cheat again.
Anyway, my Q is - is it just me or is my WH admiting to cheating & denying it at the same time?
Is he justified in his desire to not be compared to his father because he left me before their "friendship" turned to more than friends? Let's ignore the fact that he is married. He truly believes he has done nothing wrong.
I would accept that he could not grow old with me if there was no OW. I could accept that he could not grow old with me if he did not tell me he loved me & carried on living like nothing was wrong.
Don't worry I don't want him back just want opinions on whether his excuses are valid - I don't think they are....
Oh & is it normal behaviour for my WH to be eating out every single night & be the one to pay for everything? We never ate out that often & I get sense that she may be using him if he is paying for everything - remember he is 43, she is 30.
[This message edited by Duskpearl at 5:04 AM, January 31st (Friday)]
hurtingfool posted 1/31/2014 05:24 AM
I'm still in an angry/shock phase, so grain of salt.
If what I was going through right now had that kind of background I think I'd say fuck that spouse. My parents cheated on each other. The time frame doesn't matter, it still happened. I knew I didn't want to be like that and never did it. To think someone could live through seeing/knowing of that pain and then bring it to someone else pisses me off to no end.
I think I can posted 1/31/2014 07:01 AM
Ask your cousin not to share stuff like that with you anymore. He's just spouting crazy cheater double-speak; it doesn't mean shit. And it hurts you to hear it.
Skan posted 1/31/2014 12:51 PM
And if you have not already, please go see a lawyer and at the minimum, file for a legal separation if not divorce. If he is taking OW out to eat every night, YOU are in effect, paying for HER dinner since 1/2 of all marital assets are yours. If you do not have your finances untangled and separate, he is spending YOUR money on his bit-o-nookie and that is money that you will never get back.
Filing and having him served means that your finances are now tracked and anything he spends on "outside" pursuits, you are entitled to get back.
Duskpearl posted 1/31/2014 15:23 PM
Hurting fool- thankyou for your reply. Yes, it makes him an even worse person for going through the pain himself & still put me through it! Pure evil & that is probably the reason he wants to deny it-loser! Good on you for not following in the footsteps of your parents & not having the mentality of 2 wrongs make a right.
I think I can - thankyou for your reply. I know he is cheater no matter how he spins it in his head. And the longer the affair lasts the stronger I am becoming & will not take him back!
Skan-our finances are separate & always have been. We have agreed verbally (& in email) that the marital home will be split 50/50 & we both keep our savings & retirement funds. He knows I don't want a share in his mother's property so he knows I can go for more so I don't think he will get too smart with me there. Personally, I think she may be using him as what decent woman who also works lets the man pay for every single thing? Plus she is in love with his stupid Harley!
The whole thing is pathetic!
doggiediva posted 1/31/2014 15:39 PM
Just be on your guard with this person until all the legal aspects of this separation and D are said and done..
I know that when I untangle myself from my mess, I am not gonna let any future romantic relationships married, live- in or otherwise endanger my livelihood, ability to live on my own...
[This message edited by doggiediva at 3:40 PM, January 31st (Friday)]
Duskpearl posted 1/31/2014 15:49 PM
Thanks Doggie Diva, I know not to trust a word that comes out of his mouth. I've been advised by 2 lawyers that I should get 50/50 in everything if it gets nasty so he should play ball. Money means everything to him so I don't think he will throw it away on lawyers - but he knows I will! I've also led him to believe that I get free legal advice as I work in law firm. I don't,
mandan66 posted 1/31/2014 16:12 PM
Some great advice here from Diva; and, I will tell you that where I live, it really ain't over with until 30 days after the divorce is final. So I would say be on your guard until that point, and then---you can finally take that deep breath.
Hang in there honey!
Duskpearl posted 1/31/2014 16:38 PM
Thanks mandan66 - It may be best if I pursue a legally binding financial document now to get everything we agreed on.
I make twice as much as him so I know the longer this drags out it will be to my detriment if he wants half of my assets.
Thing is he is a completely different person now with no morals or scruples & has changed his whole way of living overnight. I still can't comprehend it! And I just need to remind myself that I didn't think he would ever cheat on me so I should not be so foolish to think that he would not rip me off!
norabird posted 1/31/2014 16:46 PM
You are doing great. He is very insistent on keeping his spotless reputation but it must feel good to know your family is behind you 100% whatever he says.
StillLivin posted 1/31/2014 17:05 PM
Honey, in a nutshell, he is hoovering. Plain and simple. He is cake eating too. Trying to keep the homefront fires burning in case he changes his mind and needs a soft landing.
Like others said, if he isn't crawling back sobbing and giving you EVERYTHING you need to heal, then ignore his "mixed signals", and continue 180 and NC as much as possible.
Let him know with your actions that he gets no home baked ego kibbles....as Brandon808 often told me, the kitchen is closed!


text:
Version History of Picasa 3.8 Build 115.53
- Fixed problems upgrading facetags from 3.6 and several other issues with cropped/rotated files.
- Fixed importing from scanners issue in Windows 7.
- Fixed screensaver issues with cropped pictures and captions not displaying.
- Fixed broken EXIF rotation and zoom in Photo Viewer.
- Create a Face Movie from a selection of photos in the tray (instead of using the entire Person Album).
- Original file jpeg quality preserved when saving from Picnik.
- Color Management is now turned off by default.
- Increased stability through multiple crash fixes.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If you are pre-Product/Market Fit and you aren't actually "Getting out of the Building" (actually talking to your customers), you aren't doing Customer Development, and your startup isn't a Lean Startup.
Let me repeat that: If you aren't actually talking to your customers, you aren't doing Customer Development.
And by talking, I mean speaking. With your mouth. Preferably in-person, but if not, telephone/VOIP works as well. (For the record, IM-ing does not count as talking/speaking.)
In The Entrepreneur's Guide to Customer Development, Brant and I write:
Note that analytics, surveys, and other automated user-facing testing tools are complementary to, but not substitutes for "Getting Out of the Building.
Which is another way of saying that pre-Product/Market Fit, one good customer development interview is better for learning about your customers/product/problem/solution/market than five surveys with 10,000 statistically significant responses. Obviously I am being a bit glib here, but I don't want to understate what I see as a real problem in the adoption of Customer Development processes.
Unfortunately, this point seems to have been missed by a more than a few Lean Startup enthusiasts, and it appears to me, very often by technical co-founders of bootstrapped startups.
I have been pondering this for sometime and recently had an great conversation with my friend, Rich Collins, founder and organizer of the Lean Startup Circle, a group that meets in San Francisco to hear Lean Startup founders and employees share their experiences.
Rich pointed out to me, something that is obvious in hindsight, about why people with engineering backgrounds may unconsciously avoid actually Getting out of the Building. Given that I am not an engineer, and Rich is, I thought I would share his many insights with you about engineers and Customer Development via an instant message interview I conducted with Rich a few days ago.
Patrick: You said something to me at the last LSC event that was quite interesting. When I asked about why it may be that technical co-founders don't like to Get out of the Building, you responded along the lines of: engineers don't want to go and talk to customers, that is why they became engineers. I think you hit the nail right on the head. Can you expound on that some more?
Rich: Sure. I can mostly speak to my own experience. I can't say that I became a software developer to avoid talking to people but I can say that it is really easy for me to sit down for a long time without talking to people. And that I'm more uncomfortable talking to people that I don't know than most people.
So what attracted me to software is that I thought it was fun but what kept me away from talking to customers is that it was way outside of my comfort zone.
To summarize, it's easy for some people to become engineers because it's fun and it isn't a problem that you don't have to talk to people.
Patrick: What are the ramifications of that?
Rich: And if it were easy to talk to people, they might not have become engineers. In addition, the more time you spend doing software, the less time you spend interacting with other people face to face, so your communication skills get rusty. Scott Adams made a recent post about how you shouldn't go out and socialize after a long day of programming as you use your brain in a fundamentally different way.
He described talking to people after doing a lot of development like talking to someone that was at the end of a long hallway. You feel quite disconnected from the real world. So that makes something that started out difficult even harder.
Patrick: Do you find that to be true?
Rich: Definitely.
Patrick: In the CustDev context, how would you hack that?
Rich: One thing that I do is batch things together; I don't switch back and forth. Right now I'm in interview mode, so I'm spending all of my time talking to people.
Patrick: So batching tasks and avoiding context-switching works well. Do you carve out a full day for that? Or a few hours?
Rich: It's easier than spending the morning programming and then talking to people in the afternoon.
I try to fill my schedule if there is some downtime I try to spend it finding more people to interview, but sometimes there is development that has to get done. So I work that in, but it isn't like a typical dev day where I might go 6 hours or more straight without using my voice.
I don't have a hack to getting started.
Patrick: Maybe JFDI?
Rich: Yeah. I just had to feel the pain of not doing it enough. Spending years failing helps you get over those types of fears. Eventually you just say f*ck it.
Patrick: LOL.
Rich: So I don't have as much trouble with getting over the fear of talking to people, I still do when I have to talk in front of lots of people because I don't do it that often.
Patrick: What would you advise to a technical co-founder at a bootstrapped startup who is into Lean Startups? But isn't actually "getting out the building"?
Rich: They really need to be convinced of its value. I would say to try it out for a week and see if they don't generate a lot of insights that they wouldn't have otherwise.
Patrick: What is the value specifically for an engineer?
Rich: I think you need to be aware of the value of the product that you are building if you don't have those conversations first hand, you might have a hard time understanding what your goal is, unless you have the need specifically.
Patrick: Well-put.
Rich: That is why so many developers build developer tools. It isn't a very good market, but at least they understand it. The GitHub guys did succeed building something for other developers. They didn't really need to push themselves to get outside the building, since they were already going to dev meetups and working with devs, but there are only so many opportunities like that.
Most of the opportunities go unfulfilled because the people that can actually build the solution don't know about the problem.
Patrick: I have heard that observation before. Going back to the CustDev tactical level, what is most discomforting or fear-inducing part of getting out of the building? And does it get easier for you?
Rich: The act of trying to convince people that you don't know to share time and information you have to sell them on meeting with you and giving you valuable information.
Patrick: How do you accomplish that?
Rich: Many people have trouble talking to other people at a party, let alone asking people that you have very little connection to you for their time. I'm currently working on a tool for attorneys and everyone knows an attorney, so I just asked friends and associates if I could interview any attorneys that they know. I described to them what I'm doing, told them that I wanted to interview attorneys so that we could build the best product possible for them and let them know that we aren't selling anything and that it would only take 15 minutes.
Patrick: And what has the response been?
Rich: Most people are quite willing to help out. I'm not sure why at this point. I think if you ask people for a favor, they will generally help you out at least once.
Patrick: Even if they are strangers?
Rich: I don't solicit total strangers, I ask friends and associates for referrals, the people I end up interviewing are strangers, but I have some social proof by going through a friend.
I typically find that the people that I interview like having their opinion valued. They seem to enjoy it.
Patrick: Right. Do you do your interviews in-person? Over the phone? Over IM?
Rich: I do phone and in person. It's harder to gauge emotion over IM and its easier for people to focus their attention elsewhere. I always try to do it in person. I do phone if that isn't possible for some reason.
Patrick: Are you actually telling me emoticons aren't emotive enough for you for CustDev interviews?
Rich: Heh. Yeah it's hard to tell what people are thinking over IM. Even though I prefer IM for most communication.
Patrick: Do you do try to get people in person?
Rich: I just ask if I can have 15 minutes of their time to show them our product and get their advice.
Patrick: At their offices? Coffee shop? Homes? Local hookah bar?
Rich: I tell them I'll meet them wherever is convenient for them. So far it's been office or lunch. When I was working on Stylous it was coffee bars, since that is a consumer product.
Patrick: Would you say that there is value in observing the emotional state and body language of a person during a custdev interview?
Rich: Definitely! I was interviewing a guy on Clientite and he was trying to tell me that it solved his problem but it was obvious that it didn't excite him at all.
Patrick: What gave it away?
Rich: I've mostly been interviewing corporate attorneys. It doesn't seem to excite any of them so now we're focusing on firms that have a high caseload where each case doesn't have a high value.
Patrick: So he was verbally saying one thing, but body language/voice-inflection was telling another story?
Rich: Yeah his voice didn't reveal any real interest. Same with issues that we had with Stylous. You can tell when people aren't interested in something.
Patrick: Were you able to segue into anything that interested him?
Rich: Yes, but instead of pivoting we're going to keep looking for people with the problem that were solving since were early on in the process. So I now know more about what corporate attorneys that bill hourly are looking for and it isn't our product.
Patrick: That is valuable information.
Rich: So we're going to interview other types of attorneys.
Patrick: Maybe not what you wanted to hear – but valuable nonetheless
Rich: Yes, that would have been nice if all attorneys wanted our product but we had no reason to think that corporate attorneys would specifically like it I just took interviews with every attorney that I could, in hopes that they would point me in the right direction.
Patrick: I like that. Hustle.
Rich: So now I can start biasing my search. Yeah, it helps to interview as many people as you can IMO. Spending that time doing more development is a waste in our case as I built an MVP that my co-founders firm is using.
Patrick: Do you go into your interview with a game-plan of what you want to know? Or do you go more free-form?
Rich: A basic game plan. I identified the reasons that I thought that our product would be of value I came up with some signs that it would be valuable and asked them of those signs (symptoms?) manifested themselves at their firm. It wasn't that easy for Stylous. People that shop don't have a "problem" per se that they are trying to solve.
Patrick: For Clientite, have you asked about pricing at all?
Rich: Vaguely, mostly about what we would charge for, not how much.
Patrick: When you do an interview – how do you judge whether or not it added value to your startup?
Rich: I don't have a specific metric or anything like that. Mostly gut. Did I learn something that will help me make decisions in the future? Will I be able to ask different questions in the next interview based on the results of this one?
Basically can I use this to refine my search for the best customer type.
Patrick: Do you think a technical co-founder can or should rely on a generalist co-founder to do custdev interviews for him?
Rich: I think it depends on the specific situation. I don't think that technical co-founders should ever entirely opt out of the process. They should at least see the product being discussed first hand even if they aren't asking the questions. Ideally, you could be both the problem team and the solution team but those opportunities are hard to come by.
My co-founder lives on the east coast, so were doing it in parallel, he's the subject matter expert (an attorney). It's probably more important for me to get out and interview people at first because I know little about the industry. That may vary for other tech co-founders
Patrick: How do you feel about surveying?
Rich: I don't do any surveying. I wouldn't call that customer development because it doesn't provide you very general information. It isn't a good way to explore the problem. It might be a good way to see how lots of people feel about something very specific. Like have you noticed that you've started converting more customers since you've started using our product, but it's unlikely to provide much insight outside of the question itself and it might even fail at that, since people might interpret the question in a way that you didn't intend you can only find that out through a conversation.
For instance, I interviewed someone today and his idea of the product was entirely different from what I described in the one line email I sent him asking him for the interview.
Only through a conversation and showing him a demo did he actually understand what I was trying to do
Patrick: Out of curiosity, what did he mix up?
Rich: He thought we were building a product that would be used to improve the efficiency of sending messages to the client, meaning some interface for sending emails. Our product does send emails but the more important feature is that it provides a website for clients to log into to look at all of their case information. He didn't get that from my description. Which also provides evidence that an MVP can be important to have when you're interviewing. It's vary hard to abstractly describe the experience of using something.
Patrick: Absolutely. Did you change your one-line email description?
Rich: That was just an hour ago … so not yet ;-)
Patrick: How many customer calls/interviews are you doing a week (roughly)?
Rich: 10. I'd like to do more but I'm just starting out for this project.
Patrick: That is impressive.
Rich: So this is the initial wave, I'd like to try to do 4x a day, if I could find a way to schedule that many people. That is another hard thing being a developer: The real world moves very slowly compared with software. It's easy to measure progress when you're writing code, at least in terms of the features that you're trying to build, not necessarily in your goal of building a profitable company. So you (I) would typically rather write code because I know that I'm going to make progress, even though I now believe that to be a flawed approach.
Patrick: And that feels pretty good, right? Building something?
Rich: Yeah, it's easy.
Patrick: But it may be illusory and that is the point of LS/CD.
Rich: Yes to mitigate risk that you're building the wrong product. Building something only mitigates it somewhat.
Patrick: I imagine for you it is rather facile to get into "The Flow" when coding – have you been able to get into The Flow when interviewing?
Rich: I think that I'm still working on that. I'm guessing that I will with time.
Patrick: Are the interviews easier than before? Same? Less stressful? More?
Rich: Certainly easier than when I first started with Stylous. It is also getting easier with Clientite as I learn more about the industry and how I approach things. It's hard to have a conversation with someone when you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Patrick: Good point!
Rich: So the uncertainty around that is reduced as I learn more of the language that people speak.
Patrick: This is something Steve Blank has talked about, I think he has given examples of this on his blog.
Rich: I wouldn't normally have started a company focusing on an area that I don't understand but I think that Lean Startup provides a process that you can use to learn about a market.
Patrick: Agreed.
Rich: That combined with having a subject matter expert co-founder gave me the confidence to start the company. It was also easy to build an MVP and the value proposition seemed fairly clear (at least for my co-founders firm). So I think that this company is ideally suited to using CD / LS, if I were doing something a bit more "out there" I might spend more time building the experience before having customers use it as truly innovative things can be hard to understand when described abstractly but that just changes the way you follow the philosophy, it doesn't discredit it.
Patrick: Again, agreed.
Rich: For instance, it would be hard to validate the iPad by interviewing people so you need to start working on building the experience and testing it out with people, but you still validate the idea before you build the factories.
Patrick: Yep. To end, is there anything you want to add that speaks directly to engineers not wanting to get out of the building?
Rich: I guess I would tell developers to make sure that they really search their feelings and try to understand any resistance that they have and make sure that they aren't making excuses because they don't want to experience getting out of the building when deep down they know that it will be valuable.


text:
I wrote the following in 2014:
The above was based upon the Central Americma immigration invasion of 2014. It was at this time, that we discovered the presence of UN vehicles on US soil.
Hi Dave,I am an avid listener of the show and have heard you and Paul discuss the unusual movement of military vehicles and equipment. I just wanted to share something I saw a week ago. I live in Birmingham, AL and on my way home from work saw a convoy of helicopters that caught my eye. They were flying in a line from the Birmingham area heading east toward the Anniston Army Depot area. These helicopters were quite large and were tan colored. It wouldnt have really caught my attention were it not for there being 9 of them flying in a line. We have a lot of weaponry underground from the Huntsville Redstone Arsenal to the Anniston Army Depot and I have been seeing a lot of unmarked hum-v movement. I have seen some with UN markings. Keep your eyes on us here on Alabama as we have arsenals and military bases not to mention our proximity to Atlanta. Thank you Dave for all you do.Randy in Bama
Well, I did hear from Paul, yesterday. He heard from an old contact who photographed (listed below).
This revelation which apparently contains safes and the UN logos, according to the witness, were in evidence. As I said, this is not new.
As previously reported on The Common Sense Show:
The Trigger Event for the UN Takeover of the US
Parts One and Two of a previous series I publisheddescribed how the United Nations is poised to take over the United States. The border crisis with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is threatening to paralyze several federal agencies. When this number grows to millions, this country and its resources will be paralyzed in terms of responding the holocaust which is underway. Part Two, in particular, demonstrated how the United Nations is prepositioning resources in anticipation of being able to assume a policing duty with regard to the border crisis, which has totally been manufactured in order that the UN has a pretext to function as a force. Because the UN will be responding to a "humanitarian need" the American military will have a very difficult time objecting and opposing the takeover by the UN. The policing of the US by the UN is merely a move to gain a foothold for control over this country. When one looks at the wholesale movement of UN military vehicles, it is easy to conclude that their mission will not be humanitarian, in its totality, but this is lining up to be a military mission. As bad as the crisis on the border will be, this is just the opening act. What follows will allow the UN to assume complete policing powers in all 50 states and the assumption of jurisdictional control over all state and federal agencies.
2014 Illegal Immigrant Detention Centers
For some time now, I have been in possession of information from reliable, but confidential sources who have told me that many immigrant and American children, like Dylan and Angi, are being sex trafficked to the Sinola Mexican Drug Cartel. The Mexican drug cartels have been long been linked with the terrorist organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah. The partner in crime of the cartels is none other than the CIA in what is a very similar operation to the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. Only in this case, both drug and child sex trafficking money are being skimmed to support the off-the-books operations of supplying money for gun running to al-Qaeda to promote regime change (e.g. Ambassador Chris Stevens). This same strategy is presently being applied to ISIS and their activities as well.
Congressman Jim Bridenstine recently stuck his nose in the middle of this situation as he unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the illegal immigrant center at Ft. Sill, OK.
Human Health Services officials refused to allow a member of Congress to enter a facility in his district where some of the unaccompanied immigrant children are being housed. There are 1,200 immigrant children being kept at Ft. Sill. Ft. Sill is within Bridentstine's district. The American people are supposed to be able to depend on Congress to protect the American public from the excesses of the executive branch of the government and in the fulfillment of this duty, the Congressman was denied entry by a guard hired by Human, Health Services. He was told to return after July 21st to "make an appointment".
What Bridenstine did not know at that time was that Ft. Sill was also housing MS-13 and other terroristx
Border Patrol Revelations From 2014
In July of 2014, I wrote the following account, provided from two Border Patrol personnel regarding who is in charge of running the American/Mexico border:
"Last night, this same Border Patrol Agent called me at the number on my business card. He stated that he had been reading my articles and that he felt that I was expressing a deep understating the problem. However, he unequivocally stated my knowledge of UN involvement on the border was significantly outdated and understated. He stated "the UN is already here and he has seen clear evidence that they are calling the shots on the border".This agent claims that he has encountered UN personnel at the detention facilities that he and fellow agents take the illegal immigrants to after arresting them. I asked him how he knew there were UN representatives at the border, he said he saw the proof in the sign-in sheets at the detention centers. Also, he noted that members of the World Health Organization have been in attendance as well. So, Dr. Jane Orient's fears of a pandemic invasion may indeed be well-founded.Throughout the course of his duties, the agent has learned that UN personnel are making decisions on which immigrants to send to what location inside of the United States. He said he has seen the UN personnel and DHS agents gathering MS-13 gangsters, captured from different roundups, patch worked together as a group and then shipped together to various locations on the perimeter of the United States. He knows this because some of his colleagues are involved in the transport of these illegal aliens. The agent's partner, also on the phone, stated that "I objected to admitting MS-13 gangsters into the United States and I was told that we have our orders to treat them like anyone else".
New Revelations From Border Patrol Personnel
The Obama administration is famous for catch and release activities with regard to illegal aliens crossing the border. Illegal aliens who commit felonies are also protected from deportation and criminal prosecution if they are members of MS-13.
Two years ago, it was revealed to me that MS-13 members were being detained in border facilities until there were 7-10 of them in custody and then they were released. This got me immediate attention because I knew the drug cartels use MS-13 to murder policemen, judges and politicians that get to close their drug running operations. The immediate implication on why they were being brought into this country by the thousands told me that our people who work in law enforcement and politics would soon be at risk. I could see no other reason why they were being admitted.
Today, Border Patrol personnel are processing the same MS-13 people over and over. They get caught for committing a crime, they are sent the offenders and then ICE officials step in and order the immediate release of these people.
One Border Patrol person told me that he is hearing from the MS-13 temporary detainees that something big is coming and that certain people, namely cops, are going to get what is coming to them. The universal interpretation is that they must be referring to a false flag event that involves MS-13 and the killing of American police officers.
The operating hypothesis is that they are going to be used spread terror through assassination in the United States. Some think that it is not BLM we need to fear. One theory that I was told that some Border Patrol agents hold is that BLM is simply a distraction and the real violence,, with intended targets will be carried out by MS-13. This is not to say that BLM will not carry out violent acts, but the real terror will be carried by MS-13 and BLM will get the blame. Remember, the drug cartels already use MS-13 to kill pesky police in Mexico.
Why Was a Congressman Refused Admittance to Ft. Sill in 2014?
In 2014, I reported that Congressman Jim Bridenstine "stuck his nose in the middle of this situation as he unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the illegal immigrant center at Ft. Sill, OK."
Human Health Services, operating with UN health officials refused to allow a member of Congress to enter a facility in his district where some of the unaccompanied immigrant childrenare being housed. There are 1,200 immigrant children being kept at Ft. Sill. Ft. Sill is within Bridentstine's district. The American people are supposed to be able to depend on Congress to protect the American public from the excesses of the executive branch of the government and in the fulfillment of this duty, the Congressman was denied entry by a guard hired by Human, Health Services. He was told to return to "make an appointment".
At the time I suspected that Congressman Bridenstine was being kept away from child trafficking operations that were being put together at Ft. Sill. I still believe that to be the case because it fits the profile. However, both Border Patrol agents know for a fact that many MS-13 were kept for weeks at a time at facilities such as Ft. Sill. I think it is safe to say that these gangsters were not receiving instruction on how to become an American citizen. Were they receiving their marching orders and will soon be carrying them out? Based on comments made to Border Patrol agents that they were here to help the blacks of America, and to kill cops nd to create to create terrorist events is very telling. And again, we see the same situation and UN vehicles and personnel are popping up.
2014 Judicial Watch and Discovery of ISIS and Mexican Drug Cartel Joint Terrorist Camps 8 Miles From Texas
Publicly, the United States and Mexico deny that there are ISIS terrorists operating near El Paso, TX. However, the rapid deployment of FBI personnel, following the release of a Judicial Watch disclosure which reported that ISIS maintains a base camp only a few miles from El Paso, TX., is noteworthy. The fact that the gathering of FBI brass at the border, and DHS was not invited, speaks to the deep division that is forming within the government on this issue.
Despite having the documentation necessary to prove what they say, the Judicial Watch report has come under intense criticism from Federal officials since it surfaced in April of 2015. It was revealed that ISIS was operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that includes a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector. During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as "plans" of Fort Bliss. The implications are obvious.However, the criticism is irrelevant and false. The presence of the ISIS camp is merely part of a bigger paramilitary force preparing to attack selected targets inside of the United States. And when these operatives are inside the United States, they are sheltered and protect by Deep State operatives of DHS and their friends at the UN.
Mexican/Middle Eastern Terrorists Are Equipped with Military Grade Weapons
A very disturbing report from the International Assessment and Strategy Center stated that MS-13 is moving away from handguns to the use of AK-47's, along with grenades, rocket propelled grenade launchers, and light anti-tank weapons! The same think tank also reported that MS-13 gang recently acquired multiple shoulder-fired SA-7 anti-aircraft missile launchers obtained from an open arms market in El Salvador from left over former civil war stockpiles. MS-13, and now ISIS, are equipping its forces with these weapons as they can easily knockout helicopters and airplanes from the skies and these weapons can be obtained for a mere $15,000. This is chump change for a gang associated with the drug cartels. The same report went on to state that MS-13 has begun to smuggle drugs, weapons and human beings for the Zetas. MS-13 members are being trained at Zetas camps outside San Salvador and the training includes high level military training being conducted by member of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Think TET offensive from the Viet Nam War. MS-13 and now, ISIS, are well-armed enough to take over cities by knocking out the headquarters of local police forces in a simultaneous series of attacks in which WMD's are introduced on American soil. This belief is reinforced in the Judicial Watch report. However, if you still think this is far-fetched, please keep reading.
This report only scratches the surface of what is truly going on. We are simulateously looking at a paramilitay force that will help lay waste to America. It is a multi-dimensionl force and this is being done under the auspices of the UN, DHS and HHS.
Under Obama, America became a signatory to the United Nations Small Arms Gun Control which allows no indiviidual ownership of guns.
When we start connecting dots between these diverse events, it is clear that the Un is about to engage in gun confiscation activities. If I were to write a hypothetical scenario it would consist of the following"
- The outbreak of World War III will serve as the catalyst for a domestic conducted by the UN and their Deep State partners at the DHS
- The Deep State part of the DHS is partnering with the UN to confiscate our guns.
- Before gun confiscation, the Internet must be eliminated so the alt media cannot call attention to what is going on.
- Before the domestic crackdown occurs, the phones will also be taken down and travel will be severely restricted, probably after some false flag attack.
- The Deep State part of DHS are organizing paramilitary groups for action against the people of the US
- The DHS is paving the way for UN gun confiscation and the implementation of international martial law in America
- Holy Hell will be unleashed in this country with domestic terror attack by groups that were admitted to the country in 2015 under the cover of a massive illegal Central American invasion.
- It iis my belief these events will commence the moment that the US goes to war against Russian and/or China
There are more future report of this kind that are anticipated.


text:
Derek Rose Pima Cotton Stretch Hipster Trunk 8635BND3
Sorry, no other customer-recommended styles found.
This product was discontinued June, 2014 and is no longer available. Please consider one of the Customer-Recommended Replacements above, or try a new search.
Find the comfort you need in these super soft trunks. Features a solid body and striped waistband. Made of Pima Cotton/Elastane.
Try these keyword searches with similar features:


text:
Is this possible?
Like make a macro that only responds to ctrl alt or shift when used.
I'm trying to use these for q,e. Q,e for movement and then when shifting ect. have the modifier macro
It would be so nice if someone knew how to help me!
this is my current macro.
/cast [mod:shift, @party1] Hand of freedom; [mod:ctrl, @party1] hand of sacrifice; [mod:alt, @party1]Hand of purity; [@PARTY1] cleanse
Cleanse is the non modifier and I'll be taking that off for movement if possible.
Edited by Warac, 12 February 2013 - 07:14 PM.


text:
WAYNE, Pa., March 1, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/affy) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Affymax, Inc. ("Affymax") (NASDAQ: AFFY) common stock during the period between December 8, 2011 and February 22, 2013 (the "Class Period").
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20121112/MM11729LOGO )
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP ( Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire ) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/affy.The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and financial results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that 2% of patients who were administered Omontys experienced hypersensitivity reactions resulting in anaphylaxis, a serious and life-threatening allergic reaction, a third of which needed medical intervention – and that 0.02% of those administered the drug experienced fatal anaphylaxis reactions. As a result of these false statements, the Complaint alleges that Affymax stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.74 per share in intraday trading on October 17, 2012.
Then, on February 23, 2013, Affymax and Takeda announced that the FDA was requiring a total recall of the drug due to reports of anaphylaxis, with the FDA calling it a "serious and life-threatening" allergic reaction in the agency's statement. "Serious and fatal" hypersensitivity reactions had been reported in some patients within 30 minutes of receiving their first doses of the drug by intravenous injection, the FDA said in its statement. On this news, the price of Affymax stock declined by more than 85%, closing at $2.42 per share, down $14.10 per share from the prior night's close, on unusually high trading volume.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 29, 2013, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/affy or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.CONTACT:Ryan & Maniskas, LLPRichard A. Maniskas, Esquire995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311Wayne, PA 19087484-588-5516877-316-3218www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/affy firstname.lastname@example.com
|SOURCE Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
Copyright©2012 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved


text:
Washington, DC (August 18, 2008) In the world of Down syndrome, 'Mr. C' is a rarity. A real person whose progress has been tracked for the past 16 years, at seventy, 'Mr. C' has well surpassed the average life expectancy of a person with Down syndrome, currently in the late fifties, but in the teens when 'Mr. C' was born. Further, 'Mr. C' does not exhibit clinical symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, which is almost a given for people with typical Down syndrome over 65 yeas of age. 'Mr. C', while remaining nameless, puts an optimistic face on the future of aging for people with Down Syndrome, as scientists ask the critical question: What is it about 'Mr. C''s individual characteristics and experiences that have made him not only live longer, but also age successfully despite having Down syndrome? The case of 'Mr. C', including descriptions of comprehensive cognitive, behavioral, and genetic analyses and implications for research is published in the June 2008 issue of the journal, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. To read "Successful Aging in a 70-Year-Old Man With Down Syndrome: A Case Study" by Sharon J. Krinsky-McHale et al., click here.
"'Mr. C' paints an optimistic picture for people with Down syndrome who are aging, and says that an ordinary person with Down syndrome ought to be able to make it to seventy, once you find 'Mr. C''s secret," explains Dr. Sharon J. Krinsky-McHale, lead author of the study and Research Scientist at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities.
People with Down syndrome are born with an extra copy of Chromosome 21, and these third copies of genes on Chromosome 21 lead to an overproduction of certain proteins that cause the phenotype of Down syndrome, including familiar facial features, congenital heart diseases, cognitive impairments, and other conditions. Previous studies of people with Down syndrome over 75 years of age have found that they usually do not have typical Down syndrome, which 'Mr. C' does. That is, these previous cases did not have three complete copies of Chromosome 21 throughout all the cells in their bodies, but had an atypical Down syndrome genotype, explaining why they may have been less severely affected and why they had a higher life expectancy. However, 'Mr. C' is aging successfully despite having complete Trisomy 21, making this the first case of its kind reported in scientific literature.
"The understanding in the field [until] very recently was that if you had Down syndrome and were lucky enough to make it to 70 years of age, then you would have to have Alzheimer's disease," explains Wayne Silverman, the study's co-author and Director of Intellectual Disabilities Research at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore. "But now, we have 'Mr. C', who clearly contradicts this longstanding assumption and offers a new benchmark and tremendous hope for all people with Down Syndrome to live longer and healthier lives."
The processes regulating aging and dementia are complex and it is unlikely that any single mechanism can fully explain the array of changes that occur with aging. While future research could take several directions, including studies of risk factors like cholesterol or the bio availability of estrogen, Silverman explains that the area of gene expression offers promise at this time. While an extra copy of Chromosome 21 in a person causes an overabundance of some proteins, one possible explanation for 'Mr. C''s successful aging and increased life expectancy is that, for one reason or another, he does not actually have an overexpression of all the genetic material that comes along with his extra copy of Chromosome 21.
|Contact: Anu Prabhala
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities


text:
ELMHURST— Replace carpet, check for mold, scan family photos.
Following last week's storm, Elmhurst residents have many concerns, and Heather Stalker, owner of Elmhurst Photo Boutique, wants to help in the best way she knows how.
The boutique is offering free scanning of up to 400 photos, a $60 value to all residents of Elmhurst and surrounding communities. Customers only need to pay the cost of the CD or DVD on which the images are saved. Any additional photo scanning or services also are available at a 30-percent discount.
"A lot of people on social media were asking what to do about their pictures," said Stalker. "Yes, they've lost their furniture, their refrigerators and everything else, but you know, their pictures were the things they were the most sad about."
A life-long resident of Elmhurst, Stalker is familiar with previous floods, like those in 2010, and is extending the offer to include any photos that may have been damaged then.
"A lot of people have so much devastation that they're in the middle of cleaning up," said Stalker. "They wouldn't necessarily get to this within the next couple of days."
Certificates for the offer expire May 18 and can be picked up at the boutique, 535 Spring Road.
Even if residents are too busy to bring photos in right away, Stalker says it's most important to lay them face-up to dry. If photos are dirty, gently rinse them in clean water, but be careful not to rub them or place them on printed paper towel because the ink may transfer.
"We were just trying to figure out what could we do in some small way to alleviate some of that pain that [residents] were feeling," Stalker said.
Heather Stalker's father, Richard Rosenberg, opened Elmhurst Photo Boutique 45 years ago. She and her husband have been operating the family business for the past eight years.
"We're invested in the community," she said, "and we just want to make sure that our neighbors, our friends, our customers are all taken care of."
For more information about preserving damaged photos, call Elmhurst Photo Boutique at 630-834-4000.


text:
You'd have to set up the system so people can't vote multiple times. Otherwise they could have a bunch of bots automatically do thousands of votes to sway things however they wanted.
You'd also run into vocal minorities, which would be especially heavy as time wore on. John Q. Public doesn't really want to vote on every single bill or issue that arises, that's why he's happier with a republic than a direct democracy. Of course, if John is a heavy advocate of a fringe idea, he'll make sure to log on and vote at 6:00 AM sharp when that issue is up on this representative's poll page.
Over time, as people forget that they elected this guy, fewer and fewer people will bother voting, leading to decreasing accuracy. I don't think it would be the worst situation for the voters (certainly it would be harder for single entities to lobby), but it would come with its own set of political issues.
You mean vocal minorities like corporations that hire lobbyists?
money = votes, so if you are a rich corp, you are automagically a majority
money = votes, so if you are a rich corp, you are automagically a majority
I beg to academically differ if i may
Money != votes....at least not the peoples votes and not directly. It requires our collective consent before translating into actual votes.
Money = advertising and influence
Influence/lobbying equals politician's votes surely
Advertising equals influence over sheeple , who then do indeed vote as directed (when bothering to take time from the cud).
So money ends up influencing votes in the most egregious way. But if people were to decide that it was time to end corruption and
power corrupts
money is used to corrupt
politicians have power (given by people)
money corrupts politician
corps are people
corps are rich
rich people use money to corrupt politicians
can we vote out supreme court?
my thoughts != coherent
Maybe, but the reason Mr. and Mrs. Public couldn't vote on every single bill or issue is time spent voting and time spent understanding and debating the issue. The advent of internet polling does away with the former - it's trivial to register a vote on an online poll every morning. As for the latter, well, since when have our elected officials fully and honestly understood and debated every bill? A large portion of what gets voted on is just "issue bills," and those are usually treated as if they're bla
l? A large portion of what gets voted on is just "issue bills," and those are usually treated as if they're black and white concepts anyway. In the end, all this guy needs to do is efficiently and fairly distill the essence of each bill into a few bullet points that people can easily say "Yea" or "Nay" on.
Who gets to distill it down to a few bullet points? That is precisely the reason that so many complicated bills get treated like black and white issues. The point of an elected official is to actually spe
You'd also run into vocal minorities, which would be especially heavy as time wore on. John Q. Public doesn't really want to vote on every single bill or issue that arises, that's why he's happier with a republic than a direct democracy.
You could counter this by giving the representative one proxy vote for each citizen who doesn't cast a ballot on each issue. This would however mean that the representative stays in control unless 50-75% of citizens cast individual ballots on an issue. So you could tweak it to dial down the weighting of representative votes as participation rates increase.
The security of online voting doesn't concern me as much. There is however an insoluble choice between anonymity (the secret ballot) and making it easy
You'd have to set up the system so people can't vote multiple times.....
There are so many other possibilities.
... a properly vetted secure device from a trustworthy manufacturer
There's the issue in a pinch, isn't it? Who vets it? Who makes it? Who determines the trustworthiness?
Let's decide on the group that gets to decide that by internet vote! We'll elect our representatives to make sure the system gets in place properly!...
a "special" minority of people go round people's houses and make sure they vote the "right" way.
Here's a great way to do it - you go knocking on people's door with a WWAN-equipped tablet or laptop and say "Hi, we're petitioning for issue foo. We think it should pass, do you agree? If so, help us by signing our petition". Of course, the petition is really either the voting site thinly veiled (i.e., by signing, you're directly voting that way) or just some fancy proxy that votes for you.
(A petition is a
Election security is difficult and makes voting processes slow and difficult. This is why democracies moved from direct voting to "representative democracy" in the first place.
The state of public/private key technology today suggests to me that the system could be reasonably safe from each of the points you list, other than the purely social ones, (people with interest and time). You can't expect a polling system to solve social issues, such as disinterested voters, or organized vote buying. But duplicate or authorized users should be able to be controlled by a system of public/private key pairs.
Other than state actors, I believe an Open Source on-line polling system where registration was still handled (or at least vetted) by election authorities, would be at least as safe as any system currently in place.
Remember that the professor is looking for feedback from his constituents as to how he should vote, he is not looking to replace the ballot box.
Perhaps this is where your worry about direct voting went off the rails. That is NOT what he is proposing.
Direct democracy provides the people with a direct, unfiltered voice in that government. Stopping somewhat short of that, Hansen proposes a system of direct democracy in combination with our current system of representative democracy. He suggests that, "A representative should be elected who would work strictly as an advisor and make all policy and voting decisions based on the will of his or her constituents, regardless of personal opinion.
So the bar is much lower than replacing the voting system. He is perfectly capable under current law to do exactly as he proposes, simply by setting up a web site and collecting opinions, and then voting that way.
And in this regard such a system (if done right, or even approximately right) is probably better than the current method of lobbyists and letter writers, and campaign contribution fueled decision making. It at least has the potential of being more open, and more transparent.
The risk is more from "anonymous" denial of service attackers taking down the system during polling periods when ever an issue they didn't like was under discussion. Even this could be somewhat mitigated by making so many targets (ip addresses) available that anonymous would run out of bot-power. But that solution is probably beyond the capabilities of any given representative and would have to be run at the state or at least county level.
a minority of people has time to vote, the rest of the people have to work to keep their families together
A really interesting book that looks at direct voting (sci-fi, future-tech) is Alistair Reynold's The Prefect [1]. The author posits a future where a small part of the populace does indeed dominate issue-based direct voting (and have a greater than 1:1 proportional vote weight) but that their weighting is tied to outcomes, thus providing a "feedback loop" into the mix. Interesting take.
Regarding your overall premise, I agree - well, I guess my
You post problems, but answers are obvious.
Points 1&2&3&4 Well the banks manage online banking OK. I haven't noticed the extra odd $million in my account recently.. Just use their system with an accessible vote history on each account. And make the name-encrypted database available to everyone, and also use open source software where possible, but especially to tally the vote database.
Point 5. If people take so little interest, they probably don't even vote for representatives. So no loss.
The Diebold voting machines that Bush/Cheney used to steal 2000 and 2004 elections were supplied by Diebold, which was primarily an ATM supplier.
Both kinds of machines operated to protect Diebold's best interests. In the ATM case those interests coincided with the people using the machine. In the voting machine, not so much.
You're going to run into the problem of having a self-selected group that is not representative of the voting populace. Those with a lot of internet know how will engage, which is a minority of people, and you'll be the representative who's totally out of touch with computer illiterates. Also those with strong opinions will participate heavily while those with mild opinions (even if not neutral) will decline to spend time making these opinions known. This is the same as Yelp and other similar things.
Leaving all the decisions up to popular vote makes for poor decision making because the general public (usually) are not as informed as the lawmakers. Like Henry Ford said, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse."
It's amazing the similarities in decision making skills between the general public and elected officials, isn't it?
Yea, TFS seems to imply that representative democracy was some kind of compromise based on logistics rather than a conscious choice. Even ignoring the lack of knowledge and understanding the average person has of complex issues, the tyranny of the majority is very real and something that all democracies need to keep a careful eye on. To use the most obvious of historical examples, in 1860 more than 50% of those eligible to vote supported slavery. That didn't make them right. And even looking past that, the practicalities of direct democracy go far past the logistics of collecting votes. Everyone will gladly vote for every tax break and most spending initiatives, then stand around wondering what happened when the city/state/country goes broke. Managing a national government is a full time job, best left to people able to work on it full time.
*Disclaimer: I have zero faith in the current US Government and the way it operates. I just don't think direct democracy is anything resembling the solution since the only thing I have less faith in than the US Government is the US general voting population.
That's because we've gone from a Republic to a direct democracy. There's a difference between electing our own senators, and having our state legislature pick them. It's a subtle difference, and the current method appears to be better. But it's not.
Well, what we have now IS better than state legislators electing senators.
But it's terrible. If we're going to have a bicameral legislature, we need to district the senate, and stop tying it to the states at all. There is absolutely NO legitimate reason that North Dakota should have as much representation as New York.
I think a better option would be a unicameral legislature that proposes bills, and a direct public vote for them to become law. We have the technology to do it now.
No, we don't need to district the Senate. We need to eliminate districts for Representatives. There are two reasons:
First: Gerrymandering. It happens, despite whatever people may think. Every few years, districts are redrawn, and the politicians in power redraw the boundaries to their own advantage.
Second: By eliminating districts, you reduce the stranglehold of the two big parties. If State X has 10 seats in the House of Representatives, you distribute these according to the overall vote. A third party can
Nothing like mob rule to really get some well-thought-out laws passed.
Maybe we can all vote on criminal trial verdicts too.
Maybe we can all vote on criminal trial verdicts too.
Week 1: "Zimmerman's guilty, hang him!"
Week 10: "Oh, maybe he wasn't, unhang him. We can't? Oh..."
Week 1: "Zimmerman's guilty, hang him!"
Week 10: "Oh, maybe he wasn't, unhang him. We can't? Oh..."
While I certainly don't agree with GP's (sarcastic) position, this is really an argument against capital punishment, which, (barring invasive mind-reading technology) will always kill innocent people.
I think the bar should be much higher than it is on average for capitol punishment, however, it is possible to only convict those who are guilty, with the tradeoff that very few will be hanged. This is ok. There are some for which recovery is impossible, a return to society impossible, and reprieve impossible. These should be hanged by the neck until dead.
There should never be *any* doubt prior to a capitol conviction (IMHO). If the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt then ok, incarcerate t
This is exactly why even if this sounds like a good idea, it is not. The point of representative government is that one picks a representative, not a pass-through object. Representative candidate A takes certain positions on certain issues, representative candidate B take an alternative set of positions. Whoever is elected is supposed to do the dirty work of finding out that the proposed Sunshine For Kittens Act has nothing to do with neither sunshine nor kittens and vote for or against based on its actual provisions based on their platform. If you have an internet poll for "Should I vote for or against the Sunshine for Kitten Act (see link for details)" you're going to end up voting for it, even though the actual provisions are to spend billions on a combination tunnel/bridge across the Bering Sea. You can talk all you want about how voters are SUPPOSED to be informed, but if your experience in reality hasn't taught you the value of that truism yet, you'll never learn it.
Maybe we can all vote on criminal trial verdicts too.
::cough:: Jury of our peers. What exactly is it you think juries DO to reach a verdict?
::cough:: Jury of our peers. What exactly is it you think juries DO to reach a verdict?
Sit in court for days/weeks/months, listen to both sides' arguments and evidence, and assemble for a period of discussion among themselves for as long as it takes to reach a decision (after, of course, being vetted by both sides and the judge). The Internet... well, let's just say it tends to be a little less objective, far less informed, and significantly more hasty than that, 99% of the time. Would you want random Youtube commentators to decide your verdict in a trial?
Of course not, but that isn't what is being proposed here. This is a candidate for elected office actually taking whatever position on an issue the people he represents dictate. The method used for polling is of debatable merit. But who would honestly complain about having a representative actually represent them?
The merit of such a system in my view is that it would help alleviate the absurdity of a two party system.
Still better than the richest corporation.
So the most effective hacker gets to determine the representative's positions?
I can just see the headlines now: "99% of the ballots were cast 2 seconds after polling was open!"
"I wondered why an elected representative couldn't use...polling of constituents to decide the way he or she votes."
Because the electorate are stupid and ignorant, and malware will be developed to submit votes.
"In the spirit of science and because I think it's legitimately a better way of doing things'
If you really believe these things, then you should absolutely never hold any public office whatsoever.
Ignoring your constituency is very bad; doing exactly what they say is worse.
Even if the polling could be made to work to get a true representation of the people's will (and not of some determined hackers, social engineer or just well organised group), there is a much bigger problem. One of the important uses of representative democracy is that the People are often wrong about the details, and you can't let them make all the choices. As an example, see California, which has a very strong popular initiave system (referendums), and they voted themselves low taxes and lots of services,
What are you saying? Are you trying to imply that 4chan isn't the best choice for President?
Happy, Senator Hansen?
Even if one disregards the technical hurdles, the very idea of government run strictly by polling is ill advised. Firstly, poll results are heavily influenced by the wording of the questions. This would essentially be handing over a great deal of influence to whoever gets to phrase the questions. Secondly, it is likely to encourage demagogy. [wikipedia.org]
>> an elected representative (could use)...polling of constituents to decide the way he or she votes
We already have this. It's called..."polling", and it's a major function of entrenched political parties and their support groups.
Of course, the way the question is phrased has a lot to do with the outcome (remember opposition to the "dihydrogen oxide" plants?), so political support groups spend time crafting polling questions that help show that the majority is clearly with their team. (e.g., "Do you support the terrorists and my opponent, or apple pie and me?")
So, meh. Interesting proposal, but ridiculously naive.
Why not just remove the representatives completely? With that strategy, you get rid of the worst problem in government: lobbyists. If anyone in the country could be voting, then they will have to lobby everyone and no one has problem with that.
The voting could be statistical and random. Use some nice mathematics and multiple ways to vote from verified citizens and certificates. Just get the thing done. Institute a requirement for a super majority (60-80%) to pass anything. Bam! Problems solved.
As far
Vermont has a long tradition of town meetings where people actually meet - in person - to discuss the issues.
It has worked pretty well. Too bad yet another newcomer feels the need to remake Vermont in his image.
Maybe I can get Avi Rubin to run against him.
This guy clearly doesn't understand the job he's applying for. We live in a REPUBLIC.. which means we elect people to vote on our behalf for/against proposed laws.
Our founders knew that people did not have the time to read, understand, and vote on each and every issue.
Do you really think technology changes that? In the 2009-2010 congress [govtrack.us], there were: 9239 proposed bills, 998 acted on by the congress, 26 failed, and 366 enacted = 10629 bills.
Each one hundreds or even thousands of pages long.
So seriously ask yourself: do you have time to read a several hundred page law, filled with legalese and references to other laws, 29 times per day every day of the year?
There's a reason why our REPRESENTATIVES have dozens of staff.
Get elected, actually READ legislation before voting on it, actually WRITE legislation you submit, abstain from or vote no on anything where neither of the above are possible.
The "horse and buggy" model isn't just because of distance. It is because even the most well-informed voter cannot possibly have the time to comprehend every piece of legislation that comes up, so they vote for someone who generally aligns with their interests who's f'ing JOB it is to know how to analyze and vote accordingly WITHOUT a
internet makes it easier to cheat then in the old days of voteing.
Hell you can code a page to make it look like you voted but make it really vote for the other guy or not even take your vote at all.
your employer can make you vote at work their way with your boss breathing down your back as you vote online at work.
1. Those without Internet get no vote.
2. Ballot-stuffers, firewalls, botnets, etc.
3. The most vocal and thus most likely to vote are not necessarily representative of the public's opinion. Case in point: The Parent's Television Council, which represents about 120,000 people, is able to dictate what the other 300 million people in the US are allowed to see on broadcast television.
4. Those without the time to do the research don't vote in a way that makes any sense.
How will he ever be elected?
Our system is based on "one dollar one vote" more or less whoever donates the most re-election funds.
So his election donors have no idea how he will vote, vs the other guy who will do what he is paid to do.
Will he be able to afford to run a campaign at all?
I assume that he'd use something that's already been tested, like LiquidFeedback [liquidfeedback.org], which was developed by members of German Pirate Party.
I don't just want an elected official to do what I say. If I'm honest I'll admit that I don't give things that aren't my full-time job enough consideration to make decisions I want acted on. I want my elected official to spend more time considering it that I did. I want him to take into account my wishes, and the wishes of everyone else he represents, but also do some research that I didn't do, surround himself with experts that I don't have access to, and talk to people that aren't in my social circles, and make a better decision than I can. I vote for people I hope can do these things with diligence and integrity, not people who will vote the will of a million uninformed people.
First off, I'm an elected official and sit on a town council, so I have some insight in this. This sounds crass, but people are too dumb to understand every issue and special interests will get constituents to manipulate polls.
The reason we have elected officials is quite simply because the process of governing in a democracy is time consuming and requires people who can devote time to actually studying issues and making decisions. The average person may have time to study an issue here or an issue there, but no one has time to study every proposed bill and dig through the gory details of all state statutes. That's not to say you need to be a lawyer to understand this stuff, because most of the time you don't, but you need time. It's also not to say most people can't understand a particular topic, because 90% of the time most people can, it's understanding how they relate that gets difficult. For example, there could be a proposed bill for something like "Allow counties to assess 100% of voted mills for rural fire department special districts that choose not to collect their entire levied mills." Well, it may not make any sense and may need to die in committee if a bill was passed last year that says, "Rural fire department special districts crossing county lines must follow the same boundaries as school districts unless a park district exists along the same boundaries with a corresponding mill levy." Really exciting stuff that most people just aren't going to care about.
Even assuming people can intimately spend time to understand issues, it's astonishing how much people want to just jump on special interest bandwagons. When it comes to state issues, all it takes is some large outfit to take notice and rile up it's base. If you're going to poll people, you're simply going to get a skewed poll on any subject and moderates are going to get drowned out. That's the last thing we need. Take the example above - one group can easily skew it to say, "The county governments want to raise your taxes and take more money from you!" Another group could easily say, "We absolutely better fire protection and here's a way to do it without raising taxes." Both groups could be right, both could be wrong, or the answer is something more gray and in the middle. Most likely it's gray and in the middle and most likely mindboggingly boring and most likely only brought up because Rep. Joe Smith in West County ran into the issue, needed clarification in the state statutes about it, and it's going to be another 50 years before someone else cares about it.
Now, having said that, I think anything that gets people to get involved with their government is a good thing. Most people simply like to bitch about it without understanding it or participating in it. (Hey you - if you've never gone to your local town council meeting, you should do it sometime just to see how it works. You'll learn something about the people you vote for.)
All excellent points.
To distill it even further, how would we make unpopular decisions? Tyranny of the masses is not an effective form of government.
My constituents vote me into office to do the work for them.
This evening after a four hour formal public committee meeting I made decisions on two related items, for which I'd had to read and understand a 1,500 page agenda pack, most of which I'd seen (and contributed to) several times before in the various drafting stages over the past few months.
Now, who do you suppose is in a better position to make a good decision:
(a) the elected politician, who has done all the above work (plus many hours of informal p
Pure democracies do no work; that's there hasn't been one in in 2000 years (if even that counts). The average person simply isn't informed enough about every issue to make valid decisions. Plus, you have to guarantee near total participation for even the theory to work. In our society of imbalanced access to resources, you're invariably going to end up with a daily voting class (probably wildly slanted to retirees) disenfranchising the working/busy/disconnected members of society who won't be able to log
So what if you e-polled your constituents about, say, reinstating slavery, public segregation, revocation of black voting rights, or renewed forced sterilization of mentally ill people, and a majority responded in favor of it? Would you slavishly honor the will of that misguided majority, or would you try to inject a little meta-parental oversight into it?
Democracy ain't perfect. I hope this dude recognizes that, aside from his little publicity stunt.
You may have already realized from the comments that many of the respondents took what you said:
"I wondered why an elected representative couldn't use online and in-person polling of constituents to decide the way he or she votes."
and interpreted it as:
"I wondered why we couldn't use online and in-person polling of constituents to decide the whether or not a bill is passed."
I think that is a reasonable interpretation, but I doubt that's what you meant.
I'm going with the belief that you meant to say somethin
Plank One -- Nonsensical polling idea that will be sure to attract attention.
What's your price?
Our legislatures are designed to be re-publics: members of the public who represent the public at large. Representatives are supposed to be leaders who represent the people, but not necessarily their day to day whims. It's one reason why we don't have direct democracy, putting every vote to public ballot.
What would be good would be a poll before every vote, published before every vote. Then the rep voting however they best decided to represent the public's interest. Voting in the legislature against the res
see subject.
I've debated something along the same lines for at least a decade now.
It's nice to see someone going forward with it.
Even if direct democracy is a danger, I don't see why each representative shouldn't have his own forum set up for his constituents.
Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser


text: I cannot find any guides on the wiki, in here or anywhere on the net to do the mono with fastcgi and litespeed. what I have is a cpanel server and am needing to migrate some users from an apache cpanel server with mono support. I seen somewhere on here you cant use it with apache config. Anyway, I need a lil help with this


text:
Looking at career OPS .vs. 2013 OPS for every Red with 200 AB's or more. Only Choo (which you can attribute to GABP), Bruce (by only .005), Mesoraco (expected in 2nd year in the bigs) and X Paul are above their career average OPS. All other regulars or semi-regulars are below their career average. Some (Hanigan, Phillips, Heisey) by a significant margin.
Good starting pitching has allowed the Reds to win 90+ games but you have to think even average years by some of the hitters would have led to 5-6 more wins.


text:
VOSS, Norway (March 8) – With sunny skies and an energetic crowd, Hannah Kearney (Norwich, VT) and Patrick Deneen (Cle Elum, WA) both battled through the small final to win bronze in dual moguls at the 2013 Voss FIS Freestyle World Ski Championships. Friday made two medals out of two for them both at the World Champs. Kearney stole gold in moguls Wednesday with her clean, calculated skiing and Deneen took bronze with his voracious speed. In women's duals, Canadian Chloe Dufour-Lapointe became the new World Champion, while Miki Ito (Japan) took silver. In men's, Alex Bilodeau beat yellow bib holder Mikael Kingsbury (both Canadian) to become the new World Champ.
QUOTESPat DeneenToday was definitely a good day. When we got to the course this morning it was in rough shape, but the more we got to ski it the better it got. I am really satisfied with the way I skied all week; to walk away with two medals at World Championships is a huge accomplishment. Obviously I would have like to have been higher up on the podium but this is just more fire for me as I look towards Sochi.
My body is sore after so many days of training and competing but there's really no better feeling than leaving here knowing I left everything on the hill.
Hannah KearneyMy finals run was by far my best run of the day. I had my best start out of the gate, a clean layout and I was able to stand up tall and ski more directly through my top air. I had a mute grab off my bottom air which was the first time I've completed that in a duals competition so that's something I'm extremely proud of.
Walking away with two medals is great but my mindset moving forward is on the globe. I'm only a few points ahead and that is not enough to sit comfortably. We are in Sweden next weekend and that's where my focus is now.
In my semifinals run everything happened so fast. All I knew was I ended up with a broken pole and I had lost a ski. Luckily I was totally fine. I had to run back to the hotel to grab another pole in like four minutes before my dual with Heather. That was probably the most stressful part of the day!
RESULTSWomen's ResultsMen's Results
USSA Network
U.S. Ski Team athletes rely on the support of the American public - the U.S. Ski Team has no government support. It's a year out to the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games with 12 months of vital preparation ahead. If you believe in helping athletes achieve their goals, click here to support the team.