text:
. Please
Did you miss your
activation email?
September 05, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
Luminous Landscape Home
Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques
Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
Primes vs. zooms
Pages: [
Bottom of Page
Topic: Primes vs. zooms (Read 16016 times)
Full Member
Posts: 201
Primes vs. zooms
May 20, 2005, 11:35:26 AM »
Jonathon, I agree with you regarding the dust issue.
I don't have a basketful of old lenses left over from the film days so I thought I ask others if they tried. I'm quite sure the issue is the same for both Canon and Nikon owners and its only a wide issue as tele's work just fine.
I like to keep a camera with me at all times. Like most here, I own a weighty chest of lenses for all times and places.
These high pixel cameras are just amazing and put me finally off film. But film was simple. My M2 was set on 1/125 @ f11 with high res film Chrome 64 or Vel50. It was zone focused (hyperfocal) and I carried a Luna Pro. I do an incident reading for HLights and if needed a reflected reading for the shadows.
One camera - one lens, simplicity itself. This is for the fun side of my life.
I'm going to buy a 20mm, probably mf. I may run the camera on M exposure mode for grins. Agreed its massive overkill to use a pro body and if I had a choice, I go with something lighter and more basic.
I'm sure there coming. The latest generation of high rez sensors has changed the game completely. 6-8 doesnt get it for me (film can be a viable option), 12.4 is a whole new world. (BTW, sub 11 and 16.7 where appropriate)
Sr. Member
Posts: 1604
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #1 on:
May 22, 2005, 03:31:19 PM »
If I were still a Canon user, I would prefer the 70-200 f/4 L over its two pounds heavier f/2.8 big brother, and likewise the 17-40/4L over the 16-35/2.8L.
I recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, it's heavy. But the IS makes it usable at 200mm with the reduced frame of the 20D.
I've tested with and without IS for my continuing sunset fascination. I really can't see how I'd get enough keepers without IS, especially when I've got the 1.4 Extender on.
So as long as I want to capture images througout the range, the weight problem is mostly irrelevant to me.
Maybe there should be a 28-70 f/4 L to fill out the high quality f/4 zoom range?
Yes, that would be nice, if it was as good as the f/2.8L optically!
The 18-85 EF-S is close I suppose.
Except for being EF-S, of course.
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #2 on:
May 23, 2005, 11:30:53 AM »
I recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. ... the IS makes it usable at 200mm with the reduced frame of the 20D.
The 18-85 EF-S is close I suppose.
Except for being EF-S, of course.
Clearly IS is useful for you and many other people, but not much for my style. A monopod or tripod when needed is enough for me, and I can leave that extra weight behind when not needed, whereas the extra weight of IS (and f/2.
is always there.
And since you are using a 20D, why is EF-S vs EF an issue, apart from the likelihood that a competently designed lens optimized for the format and sensor type in use is likely to perform better than a lens designed for some other format, and maybe for a different sensor type (film)?
Full Member
Posts: 201
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #3 on:
May 23, 2005, 06:57:01 PM »
I was just crusing photozone and the thought crossed my mind. In the old days, the zooms get rated as a group and the primes separately as their own group(standard). The standards were not the same as a zoom was expected to have lower resolution/optical quality than a prime.
Is the ratings at Photozone or at Bjorn Rorslett site still infulenced by the same mind set or different expectations?
I see quite a few 5's in zooms and mostly 4's in the better primes.
Is the standard different?
Sr. Member
Posts: 9171
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #4 on:
May 24, 2005, 08:43:20 PM »
Checking the reviews on the net I see once again there is total disagreement regarding the quality of the EF-S 17-85. Some people find it sharper than their 17-40, others find it no where near as sharp. Dear me!
Some reviewers do appear to have successfully used 1/6 and 1/8sec shutter speeds though. Could be useful in those Italian museums that don't permit flash or tripod.
Sr. Member
Posts: 9171
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #5 on:
May 25, 2005, 08:04:31 PM »
I never tried handheld at those speeds, but I would not even think of trying that because that is the sweet spot for mirror vibration. Why ask for trouble?
That's a good point I never considered. However, I guess untuitively I thought that grasping a camera firmly with both hands and pressing to it one's face might be a very effective method of dampening mirror vibration
Sr. Member
Posts: 777
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #6 on:
May 26, 2005, 08:04:40 PM »
There is one new, fast stabilized 200mm prime aimed at use with "DSL formats", the Nikon 200/2 VR. Probably Nikon has more interest than Canon in a fast lens at that focal length, since they are aiming their new top level lenses at use with DX format, while Canon's best lenses are probably still aimed mostly at use with EOS-1 digital family, so 35mm or 1.3x format.
The only two lenses I can remember that Canon have brought out recently for 1-series cameras are the 400mm DO and the 70-300DO. I suspect part of the reason for a lack of new lenses targeted at the 1-series camera is a desire on Canon's part to perfect the DO technology such that it provides them with a differentiator in the marketplace. As to 200mm on a Canon a prime it would have to be going some to beat the quality of the 70-200 zoom lenses, perhaps having wider apeture would be the differentiator. Now a 200mm/f1.2 DO IS lens at half the weight and size of the zoom may be interesting.
David Plummer
Full Member
Posts: 201
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #7 on:
May 27, 2005, 10:08:47 AM »
There is one topic we haven't hit upon. That is the extra light being bounced around inside the mirror box/lens by significant overcoverage of the sensor and the fact the sensor itself is hmmmm 'reflective' and throws light back. I can see where the new design DX lenses can minimize the impact. I'm assuming the older primes have more of an issue.
Is this true or is the problem more theory than reality?
Sr. Member
Posts: 1604
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #8 on:
May 30, 2005, 04:15:48 PM »
They certainly could have limited it to the the reduced frame cameras they already had, the D30, D60 and 10D; they could have done something like what Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are all doing: design a 17-something lens for the "APS-C" image circle, compatable with their existing EF mount.
Well, judging from what I've read of the 17-40L, it seems that it's a lens doing exactly this; it's optimized for a reduced image circle (up to the APS-H -- 1.3x -- models), yet utilizes the same mount.
Someone please correct me if this impression is wrong.
That less extrem wide angle design would have allowed some combination of lower cost, lower weight, and less restricted zoom range, and would have been of great benefit to owners of their early 1.6x DSLR models.
Compared to the 16-35L (and formerly, the 17-35L), the 17-40L certainly has a greater zoom range (a minute difference, I agree), lower cost (this difference is significant) and lower weight (475g vs 600g for the 16-35L).
In fact I have still seen no good explanation of why the shorter back focus of EF-S designs is useful, apart from some mild cost savings mostly relevant to lower level lenses
I thought the shorter back focus also made it easier to cut down on weight and made optics a bit easier to handle.
The EF-S 10-22 weighs only 385g, and is
wide for a zoom. But no more so than the 16-35mm is for a FF 35mm sensor.
Another intermediate option might have been making it cover up to 1.3x, with a bit more zoom range like 17-50 possible due to the less extreme wide angle design, to give 1D owners a more useful wide angle option.
That's what's sad about using a 1D (MkI or MkII), you just won't get a really wide angle zoom from Canon. But could they even have made something similar to the 10-22 viable for the APS-H format? From what I see in my own pictures, the vignetting is already significant with a 20D, a 1D would make it awful.
I guess the complaints about the qualities of the 10-22 on a 1D MkII would be similar to the ones seen on naturfotograf.no about the 17-40L used on a 1Ds MkII.
It's a good thing we can turn to Sigma and Tamron, no?
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #9 on:
May 30, 2005, 04:58:35 PM »
Well, judging from what I've read of the 17-40L, it seems that it's a lens doing exactly this; it's optimized for a reduced image circle (up to the APS-H -- 1.3x -- models), yet utilizes the same mount.
Someone please correct me if this impression is wrong.
Compared to the 16-35L (and formerly, the 17-35L), the 17-40L certainly has a greater zoom range (a minute difference, I agree), lower cost (this difference is significant) and lower weight (475g vs 600g for the 16-35L).
In fact I have still seen no good explanation of why the shorter back focus of EF-S designs is useful, apart from some mild cost savings mostly relevant to lower level lenses
I thought the shorter back focus also made it easier to cut down on weight and made optics a bit easier to handle.
The EF-S 10-22 weighs only 385g, and is
wide for a zoom. But no more so than the 16-35mm is for a FF 35mm sensor.
The 17-40 is a 35mm format ultra-wide lens, even if partly intended for used as a moderately wide lens after 1.6x crop. Canon describes it as "ideal for both film and digital SLRs" at
anf gives MTF urves al teh way to 22mm radius.
Its zoom range of 2.3x is good for an ultra-wide zoom, but unusually narrow for a moderate wide to moderate telephoto (which is what it becomes after a 1.6x crop).
To see the cost, weight and zoom range limitations of having to produce an ultrawide 35mm format image at 17mm, compare to the Pentax 16-45 f/4, which has a wider focal length range in both directions, with the same minimum f-stop, and is substantially lighter and less expensive. Or compare to the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, which again goes to shorter and longer focal lengths, with substantially larger maximum apertures, and again is lighter and cheaper.
The 17-40 f/4 is lighter than the 16-35 f/2.8 largely because it is one stop slower, which roughly halves the size (area) of the front elements.
The EF-S 10-22 again saves weight by having quite small maximum apertures, f/3.5-4.5; I see no evidence that short back-focus design is a major factor in this. It is only 100g lighter than the slightly faster and longer Nikon 12-24 f/4, or the even faster Olympus 11-22 f/2.8-3.5; both of those are very highly rated for their optical performance too.
And to repeat, given the very good optical performance of lenses like the Nikon 12-24 and the various highly retro-focus Olympus Four Thirds format lenses, I have not yet seen any evidence that short back-focus has much benefit as far as making "optics a bit easier to handle".
Sr. Member
Posts: 628
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #10 on:
June 27, 2005, 05:27:56 PM »
The widest I have right now is a Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Distagon that I'm using on my 20D (which makes it not so wide). For something even wider, I'm about to pick up a Zeiss 18mm f/4 Distagon that should work out quite nicely. But I do hope that Canon comes out with some nice wide primes in the future, otherwise, I'm using Zeiss instead.
Full Member
Posts: 201
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #11 on:
August 03, 2005, 03:47:36 PM »
I guess I can blame it on Didger. He talked about buying an old manual focus 35/f2 for his d2x. About a month ago, I was in my primary camera store. I was looking at the used lens display and saw a pristeen old AIS 28/f2.0 and said what the heck, and bought it with the agreement from the store that if I wasn't happy, bring it back.
I have an obstacle course in the back yard where I do lens testing. Includes the typical brick walls, birding (with fake birds) setups, highlight targets, shadow targets.
well the 28 passed with flying colors. Small(compared to AF anyway), and sharp. Got me thinking. Since then I bought a AI 20mm f/4 (might be the best lens I've ever see at this FL), a AIS 85/f1.4 (little soft at 1.4 (usable), amazing from f2.8 to f16 where it starts going soft again) and a 50-135 (rare bird, only built for 2 years) which is as good as any tele zoom I've owned Canon L or Nikon ED. With the crop factor its a 75-200 on the DX and is sooo much smaller that the AF70-210/2.8 VR I own.
The only bust I have seen is a 105/2.5 that has the rep of being one of Nikons very best, well not this one anyway. Dealer took it back w/o question.
The amazing thing is I now have a very light walking kit, which cost me bubkus compared to their AF brothers, don't consume battery and are nearly indestructable.
Its nice that the D2x allows full metering and focus (light) with these old jewels. No more chipping, etc required
Full Member
Posts: 201
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #12 on:
May 19, 2005, 09:58:00 AM »
My question is not motivated by the idea that primes "are better" than zooms. That's old think, but now the question is "are primes as good" as zooms.
My 17-55 works well, but I have "Zoom" shoulder. My favorite way to relax on the occasional free weekend is to walk/hike with my family and carry a Leica M2 w/ 2 lenses, a 35 and a 90. Often the 90 stays home.
I was willing to scan film up to about 6 mpxls or so. The D2x just shut that down. I'm trying to get lightweight with the D2x. Yes I know the 12 mpxl D200 is coming. Until then, I'm thinking of a 20 or 24 if I can get good performance. I tried it with a 50/1.4 last weekend and it was a pleasure to carry compared to the D2x/17-55/70-200 kit that is my base setup.
Even leaving out the 70-200 doesn't get me there'
Unlike many here I don't own any legacy lenses. I was a Canon user for ever. I got caught up ($-killed) in the FD to EOS changeover. I stayed mf for years, quite happily I should add. I bought a 10D and a couple of L's to dip my toe in to digital. When the new Canon reduced format lenses hit and the 10D wasn't compatable, I threw a hissy fit and dumped Canon. I must be the only guy on the planet changing in that direction at the time.
The D2x killed my MF (2 1/4) setup and it went away.
I'm just tired of the weight.
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #13 on:
May 20, 2005, 01:28:56 PM »
It seems that the reasons for using primes apply mainly when large apertures are wanted: primes go larger, and zooms with large maximum apertures tend to be heavy beasts, and resolve worse at those large apertures than a prime at equal aperture.
But for those of us who are almost always stopping down for a fair amount of DOF and are not greatly concerned with speed, there is a great attraction to using zoom lenses of good quality but only moderately large maximum apertures. The ever increasing usable ISO speeds of DSLRs make such zoom lenses usable in an ever larger range of situations.
If I were still a Canon user, I would prefer the 70-200 f/4 L over its two pounds heavier f/2.8 big brother, and likewise the 17-40/4L over the 16-35/2.8L. Maybe there should be a 28-70 f/4 L to fill out the high quality f/4 zoom range? The 18-85 EF-S is close I suppose.
As it is, with Four Thirds, my 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 is sufficiently light, fast and versatile that I would gain almost nothing by carrying one or two primes instead. (Except for macro performance, which is my only reason for contemplating a prime.)
Sr. Member
Posts: 628
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #14 on:
May 22, 2005, 04:08:33 PM »
or would you prefer to cherry-pick the focal lengths you use and put up with the hassle of changing lenses while shooting and increased dust ingress, as well as the limitation of available focal lengths.
I'm definitely a cherry-picker. I carry around a 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and a 135mm f/2L. This is mostly for shooting people at events, or candids.
If I was a photojournalist, or nature/wildlife type of guy, I'd probably have more zooms and fewer primes. And if I did more landscapes, I'd probably stick with one ultrawide prime, and some zooms. I personally enjoy shooting with primes more than zooms, and I'm usually shooting almost wide open, so the dust hasn't been a problem in my images, however, the sensor IS pretty dirty. Needs a cleanin'.
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
Posts: 5829
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #15 on:
May 22, 2005, 11:44:03 PM »
Cheap zooms really suck. But good zooms (like the 70-200L in any flavor or the 24-70/2.8L) aren't really giving up that much to primes. A 70-200 @ 200mm will give you a better print than the 135/2L on the same camera at the same distance cropped to match FOV. The crop necessary for the 135/2L shot will throw away more detail than you lose by "downgrading" to the 70-200/2.8L IS. I have both lenses, and though the 135/2L is better, it sits in my bag most of the time and the 70-200/2.8L IS is the default lens on my 1Ds. But I'm a bit obsessive about getting the composition as right as possible in-camera so that the only cropping I have to do is to change aspect ratio (like 8x10 prints).
My Personal Blog
Visual Vacations Photography
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #16 on:
May 23, 2005, 06:07:48 PM »
that is a fairly good summary on EF-S: backward compatability with Canon film cameras, and the slight chance of upgrading to a larger format Canon mount DSLR, and thus having to sell EF-S lenses to one of the vast number of other photographers still using EF-S bodies.
The latter really would not worry me; it is the same remote and unlikley prospect as having to change lenses if I changed from 35mm to medium format in film. Putting up in the meantime with the typically lower MTF of cropped larger format lenses seems a false economy. However, as Canon has not yet provided MTF graphs for the 17-85 or 10-22 EF-S lenses, I suppose it is not quite sure that they do have that expected better MTF performance.
Sr. Member
Posts: 1604
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #17 on:
May 25, 2005, 02:53:39 AM »
Checking the reviews on the net I see once again there is total disagreement regarding the quality of the EF-S 17-85. Some people find it sharper than their 17-40, others find it no where near as sharp. Dear me!
I'm not surprised, since I've seen varying reports regarding the quality of the 17-40 also.
It looks like most of the people who think that the 17-40 is very good or excellent, are those owning a camera with an APS-C sized sensor, though.
My sample of the 17-40 is reasonably sharp, even toward the edges, but I see that the quality is lower there. There is no way I could bring myself to use this lens on a FF 35mm digital, if I don't want the periphery to be soft.
There probably is some sample variation in the 17-40, and definitely for the 17-85, so comparing two of them isn't enough to get a meaningful result.
Some reviewers do appear to have successfully used 1/6 and 1/8sec shutter speeds though. Could be useful in those Italian museums that don't permit flash or tripod.
Yes, absolutely. At 1/6 or 1/8 shutter speed, I could take a few pictures of churches indoors, at least at ISO 1600. Probably not the famous one in Milan, though.
John Camp
Sr. Member
Posts: 1312
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #18 on:
May 25, 2005, 10:34:06 PM »
For the kind of stuff I do, zooms have always been good enough, and so undeniably handy, that I rarely used anything else. There's also the dust issue which almost drove me crazy with the D1x and the Kodak SLRn, and probably will with the D2x (I got one a few weeks ago) if I'm forced to change lenses very often. There's a great deal to be said for keeping your DSLR sealed when outside...
However, I just yesterday bought a Nikor PC Micro 85mm F2.8; and whoa! What a neat lens. You can do nice portraits while walking with your family, etc., but if you want to sit down and take a minute, and shoot that carpet of wildflowers with the kid in the background, or the water lilies with the cabin...you ain't gonna do that with a zoom. So this and the 105 micro for small-object photography are going to be my exceptions to the zoom rule...
I will say that the PC micro 85 is no lightweight. The lens case looks like the crown of a tophat.
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
Primes vs. zooms
Reply #19 on:
May 26, 2005, 07:25:55 PM »
Is it only me, or are there others who think there's a hole in the prime lens lineup around 200mm? Sure, there's that chunk of L glass, but there's no IS! I'd really like a 200mm prime with IS. But maybe everybody who wants that just buys the 300mm f/4L IS instead.
I suppose you mean 200mm for the mainstream "DSLR" formats, not 35mm, since fast 200mm primes in 35mm format have gone out of fashion, with 70-200 f/2.8 stabilized zooms taking over I suppose. Maybe the prime weight advantage I talked about only really pays off at even longer focal lengths, 300mm and up.
There is one new, fast stabilized 200mm prime aimed at use with "DSL formats", the Nikon 200/2 VR. Probably Nikon has more interest than Canon in a fast lens at that focal length, since they are aiming their new top level lenses at use with DX format, while Canon's best lenses are probably still aimed mostly at use with EOS-1 digital family, so 35mm or 1.3x format.
Pages: [
Top of Page
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
Site & Board Matters
=> About This Site
=> Rantatorials
=> Luminous Landscape Video
Raw & Post Processing, Printing
=> Adobe Camera Raw Q&A
=> Adobe Lightroom Q&A
=> Apple Aperture Q&A
=> Capture One Q&A
=> Other Raw Converters
=> Colour Management
=> Digital Black & White
=> Digital Image Processing
=> Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks
Equipment & Techniques
=> Landscape & Nature Photography
=> Landscape Photography Locations
=> Compact System Cameras
=> Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
=> Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs and Large Sensor Photography
=> Pro Business Discussion
=> Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques
=> iPhone and Mobile Photography
=> Digital Asset Management
=> Motion & Video
=> Combocams
=> Computers & Peripherals
=> The Wet Darkroom
=> Digital Projection Tools and Techniques
=> For Sale
=> Beginner's Questions
The Art of Photography
=> Michael's Phlog
=> Discussing Photographic Styles
=> But is it Art?
=> User Critiques
=> The Coffee Corner
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Lula Theme
- based on
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
Lost property
Think you've lost something on one of our stations or trains? Then we'll do our utmost to help you recover it. Just tell us what happened below.
(Please note, if we need to return something back to you there may be a small charge in line with rail industry guidelines.)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
User Tip: If you're unsure of your vehicle type, you may skip the machine type selection box.
Select type, make, model and year above
"Customer service is priority #1 at Rocky Mountain ATV/MC. We value our customers and strive to be the best shopping experience- when you buy from us, you are buying lifetime service."
-Dan Thomas, CEO and Founder
We take pride in offering no hassle returns. In the event of a return, please call, email or chat with us to receive a solution to the problem. For apparel that doesn't fit quite right, Click here to see our Fit Guaranteed Program.
We will stand behind all products we sell with regards to manufacturing defects in workmanship and material. Most products are limited to the manufacturer's warranty. However, we will do everything in our power to take care of the problem.
Live chat: Click here
(Leave email if after hours)
Call us: 1 800 336-5437
7am-7pm Mon-Fri 8am-4pm Sat (Mountain Standard Time)
Each review submitted enters you into a $100 gift card monthly drawing, and a $500 gift card quarterly drawing!
Comments On Jul 31, 2015:Quality and looks for cheap. I had a American Star Racing block off and it felt cheap and looked like garbage compared to the Tusk block off. Sad thing is I paid way more for the American Star one
Was this review helpful?
Comments On May 08, 2015:Non expensive. Does what it is designed to do, and looks good. Best cheap "mod" to do to your atv; less weight and gets rid of the parking brake clutter on your clutch perch.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On May 05, 2015:It does what it should and its chrome. Came in perfect condition.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Mar 27, 2015:MAKES BIKE LOOK ALOT CLEANER
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Mar 29, 2015:Part fit great
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Feb 18, 2015:Looks super clean sitting back there. A flashy but durable solution if you plan on deleting the ugly mess of a parking brake from your bike.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Dec 21, 2014:I love the tusk name and the looks it provides..
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 12, 2014:Fits really well, looks good and is better priced than most the others. The O ring is a nice touch.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Sep 18, 2014:One of the cheapest and easiest upgrades you can do. Installs in like 5 minutes. And besides who needs a parking brake. You can always find a rock.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Apr 19, 2014:Works as it should and doesn't break the bank
Was this review helpful?


text:
I like Huntsman a lot. Probably wouldn't have voted for him, but I respect him. The two ads that stick out for me this campaign are these two:
Santorum is a godawful human being, but this ad was great.
And then this one, which is probably the ****tiest, lowest ad I've seen in a national campaign:
Huge Huntsman fan. Would have voted for him.
Not sure how real this is but I had read that Obama saw Huntsman as a rising star so they tabbed him as Chinese Ambassador to taint him in the eyes of purists.
I think Huntsman saw the writing on the wall.
The Huntsman Corporation run by his dad is worth billions so he could have gone in big since he could essentially fund himself.
Yet he chose not to.
He is biding his time to either run as a third party or run in a more moderate republican party in another election.
Perhaps he got disgusted by it all and is leaving politics altogether.
That is great, guys. But what about the surrealist nature of his ad?
Bunuel would be proud.
It's no Big John Cornyn


text:
It's so great to be in March. February was definitely a marathon, a brutal marathon. Maybe more like an ultra-marathon with endless days spent running for 26 to 40 miles with a pack of work and obligations on my back.
But March! March is a walk in the park. March is a leisurely hike. A stroll. Welcome, March.
And by the way, March 23, if you happen to be in San Francisco, I'll be at the Noe Valley Authors Festival part of Word Week. Yes, I'll have books for sale and I'll be giving away candy and The Flower Bowl Spell bookmarks. If you buy my book at the Festival you'll be entered in a raffle for a cool prize, TBD. The Noe Valley Authors Festival takes place at St. Philip the Apostle Church Hall at 725 Diamond Street, San Francisco, and goes from 2 to 5 p.m.
BTW, one awesome thing about February: I got to see my very good friend Siobhan Fallon, who was in town for a dramatic performance at Z Space Word for Word of two of the stories from her award-winning collection, You Know When the Men Are Gone. She also invited her good friend, middle grade author Anne Ylvisaker (Dear Papa, The Luck of the Buttons). Anne and I hit it off, which is great because it really is hard to find friends among writers, I don't know why. (Insert snide joke about social awkwardness, backstabbing bastards, etc.)
After the amazing and moving performance, Q & A with the directors and author, and book signing, we three ladies headed back to Siobhan's sweet Union Square hotel. We got drinks at the Redwood Room in the Clift Hotel, which was an interesting experience since it was packed to the gills with party people. The photo portraits on the walls lent the place a Haunted Mansion for Grown-ups feel. The three of us, writers with kids who are often cooped up alone with our work, had a ball, staying up late talking shop and life over glasses of wine.
I highly recommend nights like these.


text:
The Motion Avant features premium full-grain leathers, antique metal detail, and full-grain leather footbed backed by OrthoLite foam for ultimate comfort. This special edition, a collaboration with MX legend and style icon Carey Hart, includes the 'Hart x Fox DLX' logo on the footbed and a special edition shoe box.
• Distressed crackle leather toe.
• Antique metal detail.
• Full-grain leather saddle.
• Full-grain leather footbed backed with OrthoLite foam.
• Ultra soft microfiber lining.
• Fox Motion technology: Skylyte midsole, motion flex grooves, Duratrak outsole.


text:
September 1 2015 Latest news:
Matt Hunter
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Rail services between Ipswich and Lowestoft are still being disrupted but trains are beginning to run again on the East Suffolk Line.
Lines running through Saxmundham were blocked and services were delayed by up to 90 minutes at short notice because of a fault with the signalling system.
Train services between Ipswich and Lowestoft via Saxmundham and Beccles were cancelled, delayed or terminated at Saxmundham. The fault was first reported at about 12noon and was fixed at around 6.45pm.
Services between Saxmundham and Lowestoft were also not running.
Greater Anglia advised customers travelling between Ipswich and Saxmundham to use a shuttle train service.
Customers travelling to and from Darsham, Halesworth and Brampton were provided with alternative transport from Ipswich.
A Greater Anglia spokesman said Network Rail engineers had worked "as fast as possible" to rectify the fault. The firm also thanked customers for their patience.
Bus services took passengers between Ipswich and Saxmundham via Woodbridge and Melton in both directions.
Arrangements were made for Abellio Greater Anglia rail tickets to be accepted for these journeys.
2 comments
I've never seen an Intercity electric locomotive on the Lowestoft line.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
I read of delays on the trains nearly every day.What a truly terrible service.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site


text:
- Paul Lillebo
- Asheville, NC
- United States
Constructive citizen, independent
This conversation is closed.
Does permitting same-sex marriage lead to permitting polygamy? And so what?
Traditional western marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This involves two restrictions: 1) as to sex (M & F) and 2) as to number (1 & 1). The first (sex) seems to have been enforced in all societies until the past decade. The second (number) has not been restricted at all in many cultures - it's mainly the West of the last few hundred years that has insisted on monogamy. Even today many societies permit polygamy. Clearly, allowing same-sex marriage is a more radical decision than allowing plural marriage.
Recently same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states. The reasoning is that marriage, with its social and financial advantages, should be allowed among persons who love one another, and that this "natural human right" should not be denied on account of the sex of the parties.
Overlooked in discussions of same-sex marriage is this: if we decide that the "sex restriction" in marriage is an abrogation of a natural right to marry whom we love, it may be difficult to maintain the "number restriction." The argument for someone wishing to marry more than one loved one is the same (but less radical) as that for same-sex marriage. I see polygamists soon in the courts and legislatures demanding their right to marry those whom they love. And the courts will not deny their "natural right."
Legislation responds to "the squeaky wheel." Gays have squeaked, but polygamists have not. The full effects of laws are rarely discussed. One effect may be that redefining marriage will result in a new kind of domestic association, where groups of various sizes and sex ratios may join together in a new form of marriage.
In that future the best course may be to base all domestic relations on civil contract law, freeing marriage from its religious connections. In this future we may marry whom and as many as we wish, with a contract that tells our rights and duties within the group, along with rules for secession, etc. Sounds like a complex contract, but a logical outcom
Closing Statement from Paul Lillebo
Thank you all for good contributions. The answer in the end is that we must wait to see what the future brings. In the meantime, we all have the opportunity to try to influence our future. That's a fun - and often frustrating - part of the game of life.
Paul Lillebo
Apr 25 2013: No Paul,
Legalizing same sex marriage does not lead to polygamy. These are two very different practices and preferences. This topic has been brought up on TED several times, so apparently there is still a lot of fear around it.
Marriage is a union of two people who want to share the life experience together. Whatever one's sexual preference is, should not deny people the same rights as everyone else has under the law. Same sex partners have lived together since the beginning of time, so I do not understand why you say..."The first (sex) seems to have been enforced in all societies until the past decade". Nothing was "enforced", regarding same sex partnerships, it simply was not recognized as a legal union.
What are you talking about...."will result in a new kind of domestic association, where groups of various sizes and sex ratios may join together in a new form of marriage."....??? You are projecting your own fear of something, and it's not really clear what that fear is.
I have many friends who have different sexual preferences, and we have discussed the "full effects of laws". The "full effects of laws" were also discussed extensively by a lot of people when the state I live in (Vermont) was one of the first to legalize same sex marriage. I don't know where you get the idea that "the full effects of laws are rarely discussed". Perhaps that is your personal experience.
I personally, do not understand why some folks are so afraid of people who have different sexual preferences, which have been practiced since the beginning of humankind. I believe ALL people should have the same rights under the law to choose and marry their life partner. Surely, you recognize that allowing SOME people to choose their life partners, while denying other people the same right is prejudice and discrimination, which are against the law.
Paul Lillebo
Apr 25 2013: Thanks, Colleen, for the bit of psychoanalysis. I see the result is that I have "fears" of this or that type of marriage. The good thing about discussion is that I learn something new every time.
- +1
Actually, the question being discussed is a very straightforward one: whether we think plural marriage will be the next type of marriage arrangement to be permitted, if the court determines that the old strictures on marriage violate natural human rights. I really don't see any "fear" in posing that question, as you suggest. It's a straightforward sociological question about likely futures. So I invite you to discuss that question. I also invite you to read the intro again, with an open mind, when I think you will not find the misunderstandings that you report in your comment. It actually seems pretty clear.
You probably didn't notice that I suggested, as a "best course" in the future, contract-based marriage, restricted neither by number nor sex.
But perhaps you're right. Perhaps you are a competent psychoanalyst and I'm "projecting [my] own fear of something," as you suggest. Wonder what it is. It's certainly not of marriages, of any kind.
Cheers anyway,
Apr 25 2013: You are welcome Paul, and there is no psychoanalysis on my part. I am simply reading your comments, and usually, when a person would like to deny SOME people the same rights that MANY people have, it is fear based...that is common knowledge.
I read your intro and your comments on this thread several times, with an open heart and mind, to make sure I understood what you are trying to express, to the best of my ability. I do not "report" any misunderstandings in my comment, but rather shared my perspective regarding the question you present.
I do not agree with your perspectives, and there is a difference between not agreeing, and not understanding. I also am aware that it is common practice for some people to claim lack of understanding, when someone disagrees with him/her.
I understand clearly Paul, what the question is, and I have answered it clearly. The courts, to the best of my knowledge, have not "changed" anything about marriage. The legislative bodies which legalize same sex marriage have not "changed" anything about marriage. They now, simply recognize that ALL people have the same rights to choose a marriage partner.
I noticed EVERYTHING you wrote, and in my perception, the "best course" is to give ALL people the right to choose their life partner, just as SOME people have that right under the law. I have no desire to control other people's choices regarding sexual preference. That, in my perception, demonstrates prejudice and discrimination, which I do not support.
Here is my clear answer to the question you present in case you didn't notice, or didn't understand.
"Legalizing same sex marriage does not lead to polygamy. These are two very different practices and preferences".
Paul Lillebo
Apr 25 2013: "...when a person would like to deny SOME people the same rights that MANY people have, it is fear based..."
- +1
That may well be so, but I don't see what it has to do with this question or with my comment. You seem to be addressing this sermon to me, but there is nothing in my debate position, nor in my comment to you, that would suggest that I wish to deny anything to anyone. I've simply asked the question of whether polygamists will succeed in using the "natural right" argument to permit their unions. You seem to get upset over that simple question.
To put it so clearly that you really must stop preaching at me: I'm not against homosexual marriage, and I'm not against polygamous marriage, and I haven't suggested denying rights to anyone. Capiche?
By the way, you yourself seem opposed to polygamous marriage when you state, "Marriage is a union of two people ..." Why only two? Are you trying to deny the same rights to polygamists? Should I remind you that "...when a person would like to deny SOME people the same rights that MANY people have, it is fear based..."Apr 25 2013: Sorry you perceive my comments as "sermon" Paul, which is not my intent. I am clearly responding to your intro and comments. I AM indeed addressing my comments to you because we seem to be having a conversation, and I'm not at all "upset" Paul:>)
Your question is "Does permitting same-sex marriage lead to permitting polygamy?"
My answer......again......is: "Legalizing same sex marriage does not lead to polygamy. These are two very different practices and preferences".
You ask..."By the way, you yourself seem opposed to polygamous marriage when you state, "Marriage is a union of two people ..." Why only two?"
Paul, I am addressing your topic question. Your intro seems to focus on same sex marriage in my perception. I suggest if you want to discuss polygamous marriage, you start another discussion.
Apr 25 2013: "I am addressing your topic question. Your intro seems to focus on same sex marriage in my perception. I suggest if you want to discuss polygamous marriage, you start another discussion. "
Ah, Colleen, there's the problem.
My topic, my intro, the debate -- is actually not about same-sex marriage at all. I didn't ask any question about ssm. I asked, given the falling of restrictions on marriage (and here I used the example of ssm), can we expect that in the future the restriction on "number" in marriage will also fall, as a result of legal or legislative action by those who would like to see such a development? So the question, and this debate, is precisely about polygamous marriage and its future likelihood. Since that's what I set up in the intro, I fortunately don't need to start another discussion about it. Sorry if my writing is not as plain as it should be.Apr 25 2013: Dear Paul,
I don't have a problem. If you do, perhaps you could resolve that in yourself. I joined this conversation and addressed your question.
It might help for you to evaluate carefully what you write?
"My topic, my intro, the debate -- is actually not about same-sex marriage at all".
"...(and here I used the example of ssm)..."
You say it is not about same-sex marriage at all......you're just using that example!!!
Your question:
"Does permitting same-sex marriage lead to permitting polygamy"
My response:
"Legalizing same sex marriage does not lead to polygamy. These are two very different practices and preferences".
I do not predict the "future likelihood" of polygamous marriage or anything else.Apr 25 2013: I believe that permitting the legalization of gay marriage does open the door to legalizing polygamy down the road. I personally am gay and live in Canada where gay marriage is legal and polygamy is not. But I think down the road polygamy marriages is going to be a topic to come forward. I know of a very successful poly long-term relationship and I believe that if they would like to get married in the future all three should be bound together not just two.
I believe in freedom of choice.
Apr 25 2013: I also believe in freedom of choice Louise:>)
It looks like you are relatively new to TED? WELCOME!Apr 24 2013: I don't see how lifelong commitments did anything for slavery, murder, rape, war, and a list of other negative conditions. I think we will be fine.
Openly allowing people to be who they are, or want to be, is a defining characteristic of progress. Unbiased expression allows for everyone to feel that they are part of the team.
We cannot exclude people from society because they don't meet our standards. Haven't we done that already? I think we should learn from our mistakes. Let people do what they want within a realistic set of limitations...not limitations set by rhetoric and a total disregard for human-rights.
Henry J. Woeltjen
B.S. Criminal Justice Administration
MBA Student
Apr 24 2013: If "we cannot exclude people from our society because they don't meet our standards", then why do we have so many prisons and facilities for the criminally insane? The "realistic set of limitations" you mention is another way of saying "the law". If someone's "unbiased expression of openly being who they are" flies in the face of everything I believe to be right and good, then I don't really feel like I am "part of their team", quite the contrary. If two, or more, men want to live together that is no business of mine. But when my society and its leaders agree to recognize their relationship as if they were a married man and woman that makes it my business. In a Representative Republic like the USA each citizen has a right to participate in the process of legislating that "realistic set of limitations" of which you spoke. I do not recall being allowed to vote on the redefinition of marriage. Something is amiss.
Apr 24 2013: If your standards only exist to benefit you...they aren't relevant to anybody else...but you
Apr 24 2013: Really? Let's say I decide to dam the flow of the creek on my property so only I can benefit from a lovely pond with little ducks. Would the property owners downstream find it relevant that their creek stopped flowing? In a Representative Republic, or in a Democracy, the "realistic set of limitations" we call the law is never one person's command. Have the majority of voters in any state voted to redefine marriage? I tell you Mr. Woeltjen, I think most Americans would keep the definition of marriage as it was originaliy instituted. Then we would not need to discuss whether homosexual marriage will lead to homosexual, or heterosexual, bigamy.Apr 24 2013: We also use to think African American's were below the white race....simply because we thought so. Your using the same logic here.
Just because some of you think it...doesn't make it right.
Nobody cares about marriage. This is about having he same tax breaks and benefits for everyone...not just those of you who decide to follow a certain religion.
You talk about "realistic limitations".
"Your gay so you cannot get married" is NOT realistic. It has no foundation..except for your fear of change.
If you believe in God...then you should also understand you are a student. No reason to question homosexuality...God made that possible.
Or did he not have control in that area? I doubt that Edward.
"Let he who is without sin...cast the first stone."
Apr 24 2013: My responses do not take long to read and respond to do they? Perhaps they lack substance. Anyway. I never believed black people were below white people so I can't debate that with you. I think each member of the human race is created equal. I was quoting you when I used the phrase "realistic limitations". You may want to have another look at the Holy Bible before you preach about homosexuality being something God made possible (I suggest the book of Romans, chapter 1, verses 27 thru 30). I am not casting stones. I am expressing an opinion opposed to yours. You are doing the same with me, so are you throwing stones? You are not respecting my right to express an opposing opinion and you are working on a Master's in Justice Administration? Again, sir, something is not right here.Apr 25 2013: I suggest you read about Constantine and the Nicene Council before you go spouting off about bible text. I probably know more about your own religion than you. All of that homosexual hate could have been a total fabrication. You have no way of attributing that to God...unless you have spoken to him. If that's the case...well that's a different conversation.
My God doesn't create people for us to hate....sorry.
I am not telling an entire group of people what they can or cannot do. So no...I am not throwing stones.
Apr 25 2013: So, according to you the only way one can attribute anything to God is to have spoken with him? Interesting that you were quick to quote John 6:8 (have you conversed with God?), but when I quote verbatim from the same Bible you call it "spouting-off". I'm curious about how you claim to know more about my religion than I do when you do not even know what my religion is? Anyway, if homosexual marriage is accepted by society why would bigamy, or inter-species marriage not be accepted? I think the post is asking an important question. What is your answer as a highly educated Administrator of Justice Mr. Woeltjen?Apr 25 2013: You said:
"So, according to you the only way one can attribute anything to God is to have spoken with him?"
Yes...other than that you have the Ten Commandments....and that surprisingly doesn't list being gay as a sin. Funny that he wouldn't throw that in huh?
Your entire post is rhetoric, and your jabs about my education wont work.
Does permitting same sex marriage lead to polygamy....no. I'm not even sure how you make that connection.
Apr 25 2013: I did not make the connection, Mr. Lillebo did as I hope you read in his post.You are aware, sir, that there are people who hold a different opinion than yours on this, and probably every other subject? Do you hold them all in contempt and reduce their opinions to rhetoric? Speaking of rhetoric. You do know that it does not invite, or require, a response? Good luck with that Master of Criminal Administration degree, use it with compassion, understanding and tolerance. "Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy." (The 4th commandment).Apr 25 2013: You are talking about compassion, understanding, and tolerance? That's funny.
I am working on a Masters in Business Administration...not Criminal Justice Administration. That's just part of you assuming you already know everything.
Don't assume your age is indicative of greater knowledge or understanding. That logic is obviously flawed.
I'll quote your own profile:
" If we cared for one another as much as we care for ourselves life would improve. The hard part is to control the corrupt, sinful heart of Man. Global peace and prosperity depend upon it."
Some people just need to learn how to apply that.
Apr 25 2013: Good point Henry....some folks do not always apply what they preach.Apr 25 2013: Sorry. I was not entirely assuming, sir. I read in your bio that you are an expert on Criminal Justice and were working on an MBA. My bad for assuming the MBA was in your area of expertise, and for assuming you had only one area of expertise. How many areas of expertise do you have? If I have demonstrated a bias regarding having superior knowledge and understanding I assure you it was unintentional, but thanks for the reminder. I do need to be better at applying the statement in my bio. Again, thanks for the reminder. Now, enough about my faults. Regarding the topic do you agree with my most recent post above which begins, "Your point is forceful. . ."? I hope you will offer an on-topic response free of ad hominem argument. Thank you!Apr 25 2013: Opinions are fine. Opinions that impact other people are fine as well. However, when applying opinions that impact other people...you may want to consider something other than your own feelings.
If you want to define policy per your opinion...I would suggest you base that opinion on some sort of absolute logic.
Linking polygamy with allowing homosexuals to get married has no foundation in logic, reason, study, or any other form of actual understanding.
This is pure emotion at work.
"We should regulate guns because guns are used in negative ways."
Ok that has some validity.
"Overlooked in discussions of same-sex marriage is this: if we decide that the "sex restriction" in marriage is an abrogation of a natural right to marry whom we love, it may be difficult to maintain the "number restriction."
What? Do you see how long it has taken to even consider allowing these people to get married? You really think this is something that we are on the brink of embracing?
Stop making these people into "trend setters". Homosexuals were around way before you were born. This is not the result of weak public policy. This is a matter of equality and fair treatment...period.
Apr 25 2013: I sense neither of us has profited from our exchange on the two subjects we have discussed, 1) My personal shortcomings, and 2) the question about legailizing homosexual marriage increasing the liklihood of adoption of other variations on the definition of marriage. That being the case I propose we agree to cease and desist. I'll start.Apr 25 2013: First I would like to say that the same-sex marriage does exist in our history albeit quite far back.
Secondly I would like to say that I support your last statement of basing all domestic relations on a civil contract law. Marriage is a legal agreement between two people. Yes, marriage is about love but also has legal obligations. I think a human being should have the right to choose who and however many partners they want. If they would like to go into a legal contract with the said individual(s) all the power to them. Marriage is not something someone enters lightly therefore if they are willing to marry more then one individual let the person do so. They most likely have thought about it long and hard.
Apr 26 2013: Louise,
If your first sentence is correct, I may be mistaken where I said in the set-up that the sexual restriction "seems to have been enforced in all societies" until recently. If you have more specific information about where and when same-sex marriage has been legal in the past, I'd appreciate hearing about it.Apr 26 2013: Paul,
Louise's statement is correct, and I brought this to your attention in my first comment on this thread. Check out this link....scroll down to "Ancient". And of course there are LOTS of other references regarding the information you seek.
The statement from my first comment on this thread...
"Same sex partners have lived together since the beginning of time, so I do not understand why you say..."The first (sex) seems to have been enforced in all societies until the past decade". Nothing was "enforced", regarding same sex partnerships, it simply was not recognized as a legal union."
When I wrote that it was not recognized as a legal union, I was refering to past modern times. It actually WAS recognized in ancient times.
Apr 26 2013: I've read the Wikipedia reference you give. It says specifically that none of the ancient examples given there is known to have been actually recognized in law. They seem to all have been a matter of extra-legal celebrations, even if by an emperor. There may of course be other references that can give examples of actual law-based same sex marriage in the past, but I haven't yet seen any. Laura's statement also does not refer to legal marriage, which this discussion is about. You repeat again that "same sex partners have lived together ..." We all know that, Colleen, and that's not the issue. While same sex partners were living together, the state or the church was enforcing the restriction against their legal marriage, as I wrote. That's also well known.
Apr 26 2013: Paul,
When you refer to "Laura's statement", do you mean Louise Layton's statement?
The link I provide DOES NOT say "specifically that none of the ancient examples given there is known to have been actually recognized in law".
It says the ROMAN EMPIRE did not legalize same sex marriage. With the other examples, there is no mention of legality. They say that the marriages were supported by the citizens with huge celebrations....again...no mention of legality.
IF the marriages were illegal, do you honestly think the rulers would be marrying same sex partners and having huge public celebrations? That doesn't make much sense!
Paul, honestly, it is difficult to know what this "discussion is about" because it seems like you keep changing your mind. If you KNOW all this Paul, as you say, why the heck do you keep asking the questions??? So you can simply tell us that you know all that already???Apr 27 2013: Part 2
Whatever it was, all the ideas that marriages were to have had remained primarily a sexual relationship between two persons of differing sex. There had remained exceptions, but I think the overwhelmingly greater number of such marriages were between persons of differing sex.
I am by no means against same sex marriages but I think within the idea and meaning of marriage this is an oxymoron. The latest coinage of a civil union is way more rational. I don't think the gay people care much about what their relationship is called as as long as they can have that legalized with full human dignity. In a 9 Bn people world, the biological/survival propriety is also not important anymore, because much higher threats to human social structures come from elsewhere.
To conclude, in todays world marriage cannot be claimed as a natural law anymore, because it has been modified by way many social value oriented inputs compared to biological roots from which it sprang. The same sex marriage is not demanded on account of any natural law rather developed human values towards relationship rights. Therefore allowing same sex marriage does not appear to encourage further demands of natural law of polygamy (in societies where it is not prevalent), IMO.
May 5 2013: I'm sure you're right that there will not be any great demand for a right to polygamous marriage in western countries. But in the U.S., we do have a number of persons who practice this form of marriage, although illegally. And it only takes one person to file a court case demanding his or her rights, to get the case labeled a constitutional issue that may go all the way to the Supreme Court. I wonder, after the various restrictions on who may marry whom have all fallen by the wayside, if the Court would not find that the restriction by number (two persons) is also untenable and must yield, thus allowing plural marriages. Of course, my question and our discussion of it is only an intellectual exercise, like most questions here, and "future history" will settle the question one way or the other. I still find it interesting to muse on.Apr 26 2013: Well new to Ted conversations! I have been watching the talks for a really long time but relatively new to having an account. It definitely makes the site more interactive!
Apr 26 2013: WELCOME!Apr 25 2013: Hello again,
Everybody has the right to their own opinion and the right to discuss their opinions freely. As long as their opinion doesn't turn into action that may openly infringe on others' rights, that is. In this case it's only a discussion, although it does feel a bit like a frontal attack on my benign frontal lobe. I still do not see why you assume that I called you unwise or limited, I did not do that, I just typed in a little motto that I made for myself and yes, I do own-up to it, but I can re-word it to make it more precise and deny allegations of negativity: Let's be wise and loving of everybody regardless of their sexual orientation, background or opinions, it will pay off eventually. Thank you.Apr 24 2013: Hmm. This topic made me think of a short but strong conversation I had with a taxi-driver the other day. He started the conversation by telling me about his wonderful children... And continued on by saying the following: "And now queers want to get married? And have kids? Think about those poor, confused kids!"
My reaction was roughly the following: "Look, I do not care if you had one, two or a hundred parents and what sex they were and who they were as long as none of them hurt you in any way."
The rest was silence.
In my world-view, simplified for the sake of this topic, that was the truth underlying all mariages and social contracts, legislated or not, and my truth at that point was - the good of everyone involved. Why is marrying a car or a silicon doll viewed as intrinsically bad in some states when it's good for both the car/doll and the man and doesn't hurt anybody? Why is polygamy viewed as intrinsically evil when there are theories that a child is always brought up by the village or, in this day and age, a global village? It does seem to work for Charlie Sheen, his wives, goddesses and children too. Why is traditional mariage viewed as solution to all problems and heartsores in the West right now when it can sometimes lead to even more problems if communication and understanding between the spouses isn't there? This can lead to violence, abuse and hurt for everybody.
We are complex beings and there are differences among us, differences in needs, behaviour, willpower and risks that we are willing to take or are capable of taking. And there is no 1+1=3, 1+3=6 or 2+"holy script"="whatever happens is god's will" remedy for that. Sometimes the supposed remedies may make the thing even worse.
In sum - we're constantly evolving and learning more and more about ourselves and one another, let's use this knowledge in good faith, not only our own, personal fate and gain. Our knowledge is accumulating. Sadly, some of the lessons are forgotten or ignored.Apr 24 2013: The number question is a completely different question, to ssm.
Just as marrying different races, or religions is a different question to ssm.
Each should be considered on its merits.
It is wrong to link ssm to every other potential iteration of marriage. Its a fallacious slippery slope argument. Only ssm is the question at hand.
Gays, minority races, slaves, women, retirees, whoever have a right to squeak all they want.
The only argument i have heard that warrants consideration in my opinion is about whether same sex couples should have the right to adopt. If there is some harm to the child this should be considered. But this should be data based and compared to other allowable options for parenthood, adoption.
If there is harm i would not be surprised if much of it comes from homophobia in society.
Apr 24 2013: Yes indeed, the "number question" is a different question. And each should be considered on its merits, as you say.
But there are similarities, since they both deal with the definition of marriage, which is evidently in flux. When we raise the question, "does everyone have a natural right to marry whomever one loves and wishes to marry?" the most thoughtful answer is perhaps, "Let's talk about it." And that's what we're doing. In the past there have been marriage restrictions of race, social status, and religion. Those are pretty much gone now, and there remains only the sexual and number limitations. (I'm skipping the age limitation, which seems to have been settled, at least in western societies.)
Those who have an interest in the ssm issue are right to want to have their question decided in isolation, but a lot of questionable law with unintended consequences has been passed by failing to take the full consequences of the law into consideration. Therefore the thrust of this debate is whether it is likely that ssm will lead to the successful pursuit of legal polygamy, and what the effect of that might be. If it is your opinion that one shouldn't discuss this question, that it's a "fallacious slippery slope," I must respectfully disagree.
Apr 25 2013: Hi paul. Thnx for taking the time to read and reply thoughtfully.
I guess we just disagree that there may or not be a slippery slope. Ssm is a big change, but i personally don't see a real risk of it leading to changes in numbers or age.
I guess in most western countries most people see a clear distinction between 2 people wanting their relationship recognised equally regardless of the sexes, and polygamous marriage. Traditional polygamy is actually in the opposite direction to equality.
Anyway i suggest there is not the support for polygamous marriage in western countries as there is for ssm.
Perhaps it may lead some to think about it, but it i haven't heard of any ground swell in states or countries that have gay marriage, and this aligns with my thoughts above.
With respect i think this is a red herring argument, but no issue with it being raised and discussed.Apr 25 2013: I agree with what you have written Obey, and it is a good idea to consider the children. There is more and more information presented, which indicates that children are much more likely to be adversly impacted by unloving opposite sex partners, than by loving same sex partners. Parents who are respectful, caring, and loving is the important peice.
Apr 25 2013: That is reassuring to hear colleen.
I only have a sample of 3
1 where a woman in committed ss relationship (prior to the recent legalisation of ssm) had a child,
And 2 where women had kids in marriage prior to acknowledging their homosexuality and are now divorced in committed ss relationships.
In all 3 the kids are loved by 2 to 4 people and seem healthy, and happy, and straight if anyone is concerned
Perhaps ssm is not be the ideal, but neither is single parenthood or problematic hetero partnerships/ parenthood., divorce etc.
Apr 25 2013: It is indeed reassuring to know Obey:>) On the news recently, I saw several young people (high school/college age) speaking in support of same sex marriages, because they were raised with same sex partners who loved them, and wholeheartedly supported the kids life experiences.
I have several friends (same sex partners) who have adopted kids and are VERY loving parents. I have friends who were previously in a hetero relationship/marriage, had kids, got divorced and raise the kids with a same sex partner.....also very loving people.
There are several same sex partners who are foster parents for kids in state custody, who are very caring, kind and loving foster parents. The kids they care for were removed from their biological parents because of violence and abuse.
To say that same sex partnerships/marriage is going to ruin the idea of marriage, or ruin the kids, is totally without evidence, and for people to even contemplate that, simply demonstrates lack of information.
Peter Law
Apr 24 2013: Hi Paul.
- +1
I agree with your logic, the squeaky wheel analogy is a good one.
I was brought up in a conventional marriage. Occasionally my mum would not be there when I got home from school; I dreaded that, as a child I needed consistency. As a grown up, my children have expressed gratitude for our 40yr (& counting) stable marriage. Indeed we recently acquired a new 32yr old surrogate daughter who wanted some of the action, having had a disjointed childhood. This is what marriage is for, a lifelong commitment to providing a stable base for children & society at large. The wives of my neighbours can be friendly with me without concern over ulterior motives etc.
Now if folks want a different arrangement, then there has never been any impediment to that. Guys live with guys, gals live with gals, etc etc. Are we really going to try & lump all this together under some sort of legalised free for all ? It appears to me that the result will not be any enhancement of the human condition, but the destruction of the proven best launching pad for the citizens of the planet. After all, the lifelong commitment of two people is a big deal; it is not an easy task; surely the least we can do to acknowledge that kind of sacrifice is to leave well alone. There is a real danger that all these squeaky wheels will come off & leave us without a leg to stand on!
Apr 24 2013: How are you thinking that someone else's marriage affects your legs or your marriage?
Apr 24 2013: It's what becomes the norm. If marriage becomes so nondescript then it's meaning is diluted for everyone. Ticking the 'married' box on a form will tell no-one anything. Why do different arrangements have to be called 'marriage'? I guess the solution may be for lifelong hetro unions to be called something else. That would be ok, but it's silly. It works fine; why mess with it. Why are we so down on good tried & tested stuff all of a sudden; are we on self-destruct, or what?
Apr 25 2013: Some thought slavery or apartheid or women not having the vote worked fine?
I suggest the that dont fix what aint broke argument fails if many consider it is discriminatory, it is broken.
As for marriage being meaningless, it seems to have meaning for many gay people who want to have the same opportunity, ss couples will have the same rights and obligations under the law. I get your point, where do you draw the line.
I suggest ssm is not going to make marriage meaningless. From a conservative perspective marriage is a stabilising social construct, and extending it to ss couples should increase this stabilising factor more imo.
Perhaps we should have different names for current marriages where the couple intend to have children, those that dont, those marrying a second or third time, or where the races or religions are different etc. i dont understand from what you have written here why you think ss couples making the same commitment as hetero couples, with the same legal impacts, should not have the right to call it marriage.
I applaud your apparent acceptance of other people not conforming to your ideals, or making a religious based argument. I guess your point above is ssm will damage the institution of marriage, and you think the word does not need to be applied to ss couples.
I guess many homosexuals and many others think it is discriminatory and are not convinced it will damage the institution of marriage. Others, often with religious perspectives, believe marriage should only be between a man and a women, or that homosexuality is immoral, or they just feel uncomfortable with it. Many genuinely feel it is a retrograde step, while others see it as progressive.Apr 25 2013: Hi Obey.
You will know I do have a 'faith' position. However the question is about ssm leading to polygamy. There is perhaps an argument for ssm to be treated as ordinary marriage. Personally I would protest, but that's another matter. However what about polygamy (on either side), what about marrying your pet cat ? What about your deceased Aunty Maude ? Every one of us has a limit, but if we really believe in personal freedom, then what right have we to impose our standards on anyone else.
I see this as the slippery slope. My limit personally is at the top, everyone will have their own position.
To the question. Yes ssm will inevitably lead to legalising polygamy. Lots of folks practice it already, the only difference will be that they will have the right to call it marriage; much to the confusion of boring old farts like myself.
Apr 26 2013: Hi peter, i suggest we look at each on its merits.
Ssm doesnt seem to hurt anyone, and from my perspective is about equality, 2 people making a commitment with legal implications, having the same right to a symbolic union.
marrying cats is a completely different question. I personally dont think ssm will lead to a groundswell of support for this. More importantly i suggest a sexual relationship between a human and a cat is an uneven one, and not something i would support. Whereas i have no issue with adult humans freely choosing their own sexual or relationship partners of any sex.Apr 24 2013: I also grew up in a traditional household in which my mother was always home when I returned from school and my father was home for dinner. And I have had a stable, happy marriage for 30+ years and a close family. I would not exchange this for anything else either.
But I don't see that other people's having different strong families takes anything away from me. It improves the quality of life for those people though.
It's what sometimes is called a pareto improvement. That is, it makes some people better off without making others worse off.Apr 25 2013: Peter,
You ask..."Are we really going to try & lump all this together under some sort of legalised free for all ?"
No Peter, it is not a "free for all". It is simply letting go of prejudice, discrimination and fear of something you do not agree with. It is recognizing that ALL people have the same rights to choose their life partners. Recognizing the love of two people does not "dilute" anything. It actually makes our societies stronger. Discrimination and prejudice weaken our societies.
Remember what your bible teaches you Peter.....love thy neighbor....we are all one.....made in the image and likeness of god:>) This is why I left the church I was born into Peter. Because there was so much hypocrisy.
Apr 25 2013: Hi Colleen.
I don't think I'm being prejudiced or hypocritical. I have stated my case honestly & without malice. I just believe it wrong to mess with the language. I met a couple of guys recently who had a non-sexual lifetime commitment to one another but allowed for incidental female sexual partners along the way. One was a professor, he made the money; the other was a musician, he made the fun. Now I took to them both; great guys. I understood, and, bible notwithstanding, applauded what they were attempting to achieve. However, if they had merely said they were married, I would not have understood at all. They had a shorthand way of putting it, but I still had to ask. If I introduce my wife as the woman I married then folks know exactly what our relationship is, no clarification required. Is it really asking too much for that situation to continue ?
Apr 25 2013: No one is "messing" with the language Peter. The laws which legalize same sex marriage use the same definition for marriage that has been accepted for a very long time. The only thing that has changed, is that now, in some states, ALL marriages are recognized regardless of sexual preference.
You ask..."Is it really asking too much for that situation to continue ?"
It depends on which situation you are refering to Peter. I personally, would never attempt to tell other people how to live their lives.Apr 26 2013: Hi peter, i suggest hetero marriage is not as uniform as you suggest.
Some have open marriages etc.
Some married for visas
Some are have cheating.
Some were arranged by parents or match makers
Some have children
Some can not have children or do not want too
Some are seen through religious perspectives
Some are purely secular
Some are second or third attempts.
Some are just staying together for the kids etc
Some are violent and abusive
Some loving
I suggest we can cope with all the above where the couples may be ss.May 6 2013: We live in a society that goes with laws, if everything world do what it wanted, there would be no society.
http://prestamosrapidosya.netApr 27 2013: I think there are two important anchors around which this debate should focus are:
1. What is a natural law as far as two human beings of differing sex should have a union?
2. What is a marriage?
I'd like to ignore the 'traditional western marriage' as that would disqualify almost half of world population being interested in this debate.
1. The natural law here is, IMO, a union primarily based on procreation and progression of gene-pool. Stripped of all decorations, this is an ancient social trait prevalent in many higher primates other than humans with varying lengths of time, sexual loyalty to the partner, increased participation in off spring rearing and rudimentary structures of a social family unit. The basis is purely biological and survival. I don't think there is a question of 'love' in this natural law. When required, this law can jolly well permit polygamy - normally a dominant male maintaining a harem of females but a whole bunch of males 'servicing' a queen female is also not unknown.
2. Marriage is a comparatively recent idea when human society was well developed socially (about roughly 3000 years ago). It went through social experiments along the lines of biological and survival primacy with increasing amounts of inputs from emerging human values. In ancient India, for example, there had been many variations of marriages.
http://weddingexpo.amritatv.com/ancientindia.html (please don't get misled by the title Hindu Culture, because that's a popular misconception, rather read Indic Culture in its place). It is also believed that marriages within the same bloodlines were proven not 'genetically wise' and got weeded away. However, restrictions within same race, social ranks, skin color etc were examples of marriages with increasing social inputs as biological/survival primacy started to get sublimer.
Interestingly, marriage remained just social (customary) to start with, then got religious and its legal definitions are quite recent.
[cont]Apr 25 2013: Hello friends.
As host of this debate thread, I'm understandably interested in seeing some discussion of the issue I posed, so I'll give a gentle nudge back toward that.
Certainly, one of the charms of TED conversations is that they tend to branch out to who-knows-what, just like face to face talks. That's both fun and useful, and I'm all for it. But not very many respondents have spent much time on the original question, so I'll restate it in a more straight-forward form:
"With the various historical restrictions on marriage - such as race, religion, social caste, and now gender - falling or having fallen by the wayside, should we expect that the next restriction to fall (in the western world) will be that of number? That is, do individuals have a natural right to engage in plural marriage, such as is common in some societies?"
A few respondents have answered the question with yes or no, but I'd love to see more rationale. I offered one line of argument for the right of plural marriage in the set-up, and I'm sure that others have good arguments for or against.
Paul L.
Apr 26 2013: Individuals have the natural right to engage in whatever relationships they want and they do; societies are the ones that impose restrictions. By natural law gay people would have the right to form couples but natural selection would eliminate them from the gene pool since they would not have descendants (provided that they behave consistently with their sexual preference) Societies for intrinsic reason put restrictions on certain associations and they still do even though there is no written legislation to it; churches still don't marry people of different religions (I personally know a case of and orthodox and a Jewish that were turned down by both churches unless one agreed to convert to the other's religion) It's good that we have the separation of church and state even just for marriage. We never had a caste system in the west but for the most cases I am pretty sure people married within their social rank; plural marriages are common in male dominated societies where women have not obtained equal rights; I don't see a demand for these marriages in the western world unless some terrible wars will wipe out most males and women will have to share the existing ones ;)
Apr 29 2013: I agree that there won't be a great demand for polygamous marriage in the West, but I think there will be some demand. To me it will be interesting to see how courts and legislatures handle those demands.Apr 25 2013: Your point is forceful when you speak of, ". . . a natural right to marry whom we love. . .". If that is truly a natural right, what happens when someone wants to marry their own family member, or their pet alligator, or the entire cheerleading squad? Logic demands that a system which honors all love as sufficient grounds for marriage cannot forbid ANY marriage so long as there is an expressed desire to marry the object of one's love. That is simple logic. Now, if someone argues the loved one must NOT be a member of the same sex; or an immediate family member; or of another species; or a pluality of persons; now we are abrogating that "natural right" by imposing regulations. Either society says anything goes or it says only certain things go. Which of these is the case in America?. . .
Apr 26 2013: Are you really sure, Ed, that the concept of "a natural right to marry whom we love" must include the right to marry a pet alligator? You're right that it's simple logic, but may that not be too simple? I would think that limiting marriage to human beings is not denying anyone their natural rights.
Apr 26 2013: I do not agree that "a natural right to marry" exists. I am arguing that IF it did exist then any social, or legal, restriction upon that right would not be just and reasonable. Such a natural right does not exist and I believe marriage is limited to the union of one human male and one human female. I agree with your words in the post: "if we decide that the "sex restriction" in marriage is an abrogation of a natural right to marry whom we love, it may be difficult to maintain the "number restriction." I believe your logic applies to more than just bigamy. If I love my alligator/sister/mother/ and want to be joined to them in marriage society must not restrict my "natural right" to do so. If homosexual marriage is justified based upon some "natural right" why not bigamy, why not sanctified incest and bestiality?
Sri Vatsan
Apr 26 2013: You are basing your argument under the assumption that Incest and beastiality is natural. It is NOT natural and is harmful. Incest leads to inbreeding and beastiality is cruel to the animals.
- +1
Homosexual marriage however involves two consenting adults.
So I think that Homosexuality and polygamy IS justified based on the natural right to marry but incest and beastiality isn't.Apr 24 2013: II.
Sadly, soem of the lessons are also misunderstood becuse of our old lack of real knowledge...
Anyway - the driver's name was Maciej. He's ok :)
Sorry for splitting my comment into 2, but 2000 characters is never enough for a hypergraphic individual as me :)
To summarise all that - let's be wise and loving, not limited and self-loving.
Thanks for the question, Paul!
Apr 24 2013: By your logic I am limited and self-loving if I oppose homosexual marriage. Does that apply to other issues? For example if I oppose the sex slave trade am I being limited and self-loving, after all there are those who have a deep desire to see the trade continue, what about their desires? At some point doesn't it come down to taking a position based upon your personal convictions about an issue? I do not oppose homosexual marriage because I am limited, or because I love myself. I oppose it because my personal conviction is that it is abnormal, unnatural behavior. You may disagree with my convictions, but you are not justified to say I am limited and self-loving just because we differ on this issue.
Apr 24 2013: Hi Edward,
One can twist and turn whatever logic or words and find holes and loops in everything, but that's irrelevant, let me just thank you for finding those in mine and reply - I am not saying that anybody who opposes anything because of their convictions is autimatically limited and self-loving. Being self-loving is a positive thing, by the way, as long as it is not the only love one is capable of. If you oppose sex slave trade you are showing compassion for the slaves, the traders need first prosecution, then understanding and compassion. If you oppose gay marriage, who do you show compassion for? Your convictions are the expression of yourself and your upbringing and I never said anything negative about you or them or anyone who holds them, I said something else.
Oh dear, I feel like an evangelist ;-)
Cheers, Edward.
Apr 25 2013: And cheers to you too. Please explain how the following words of yours are not negative: QUOTE "To summarise all that - let's be wise and loving, not limited and self-loving." I am not taking liberty with your message, or altering its meaning, when I say you believe it to be unwise, unloving, limited, and self-loving to disagree with homosexual marriage. You must see that you did say something negative. Do you deny my right to oppose homosexual marriage? I agree that it is your right to believe anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is being unwise, unloving, and limited. I also believe you should own-up to the words you speak and defend them logically. Thank you!Apr 25 2013: I agree Anna...some folks can twist and turn words to try to support their own argument. I also agree that "... convictions are the expression of yourself..."
For what it is worth, I do not see anything negative in your comment Anna, and I agree with what you have written. I do not perceive that you have anything to "own-up to". Your words are clear and insightful.Apr 24 2013: "the best course may be to base all domestic relations on civil contract law, freeing marriage from its religious connections. In this future we may marry whom and as many as we wish, with a contract that tells our rights and duties within the group, along with rules for secession, etc. Sounds like a complex contract, but a logical outcome."
Like any other personal contract, people can sign it with whomever they want, and wherever they want (lawyer, church...). Government legislation regarding marriage is out of place, unless to make sure that all parties signing it are doing do willingly and that the contract is fair (as they do to any contract: work, rent, banking and so on).


text:
Finger Loop Braids were popular from the 15th to the 17th Centuries in Europe, There are still some forms of similar braids made in isolated areas of South America, Asia and the Middle East. In Europe they seem to have been forgotten after the 1600's. Fabric and fiber art does not survive centuries. So examples of the original braids are very rare. You can sometimes spot them in old master paintings. They look like they take days to make but I'll show you some complex braids that can be completed in 5 minutes.
This is the style of braiding that was done in Medieval Europe and all the patterns are translated from Medieval manuscripts by the great folks at Fingerloop.org. I want to thank the producers of that website for showing me this ancient and almost forgotten art.
Supplies: some kind of rope, string, yarn,...
Tools: Hands
Time: Depends on the length and pattern of the braid but the ones I'm making only take a few minutes to complete an entire braid.
It is difficult to describe and annotate the patterns. The folks at Fingerloop.org have done a good job of documenting the patterns. I'm going to try to write up some instructions for the braids I'm showing you, but the best way to learn the braids is to just watch the videos. Each video has a photo of the completed braid.
I'm going to publish this with 5 or 6 different braids and will add more as I create the videos. They start very easy, and I'll introduce new techniques as we add new braids. The braids I'm going to show you are made by one person. There are also patterns for braids that are made by two or three people working simultaneously on one braid.
Lets go. Have fun.
This is the introductory video for Finger Loop Braiding. I'll tell you how it is done and show you some examples of Finger Loop Braids that I'm going to teach you how to create.
New: I made close up videos of my hands are up for all braids. They are very easy to follow.
Wow, what a great tutorial - thank you for sharing! I've just made a bracelet of the first kind of braid, and it really was simple to make and looks great - I look forward to trying the other braids later :)
I recently used finger-looping to braid a bowstring for a toy bow made out of half of a powder coated bicycle wheel for my nephew. As soon as I put up the Instructable for it, I will link to your Instructable as a reference.
Lastly, here's a note for anybody trying this for the first time:
If you tighten a C-clamp onto your work table, you can use the threaded axle as your hitching post. Just remember to slip something over the axle before you start braiding - a short bit of pipe or something similar would do. Otherwise, you won't be able to get your finished braid over the clamp's foot. That sounds like a goofy mistake to make, but it's exactly what I did on my first try. For awhile, I had the most decorated shop clamp on the block. Still, the C-clamp arrangement works pretty well with a bit of pipe over it.
I gave you props for the tutorial and linked back to this page as well. Hope it's alright :)
Do you sell a DVD of them. Also I did have trouble with tension with silk cords.
Thank you for the great instructable, the whole project took only about half an hour (and 17 yards of cord).
Your directions were easy to follow and I now have a number of colorful braids just languishing around the house!
I do howver want to make the brown bracelet pictured here (next to the white one) and although it looks like the same five loop technique my attempts always come out looking more like the white one. Can you tell me whether this is becasue,
a) the technique is different,
b) the cord is different,
c) I'm pulling it too tightly,
or d) all and / or none of the above??
I really appreciate any help you can give me on that score and just want to reiterate that your instructable was totally amazing !! :) Thanks much :D


text:
Creston head girls basketball coach Larry McNutt knows how important it is to have experienced players on a roster.
And that's exactly what he has on his roster this year, as the Panthers return three starters from last year's 6-17 team, along with a host of other players who suited for the varsity team last year.
Senior Chelcee Downing and juniors Natalie Mostek and Brenna Baker all started for the Panthers last season. Senior Olivia Nielsen and sophomores Jenna Taylor and Camryn Somers all played quality minutes off the bench a year ago.
"It helps experience wise," McNutt said about returning three starters. "They've been through it as starters. They know the other teams a little bit and what we need to do. And hopefully it provides a little bit of leadership. They've been through it and know how it works. Any time you have experience, it's a good thing."
Mostek led the team last year with 9.2 points per game, 7.2 rebounds per game and 46 assists. Downing chipped in 6.3 points per game and Baker averaged 4.2 points per game.
Filling roles
Even with all the experience the Panthers return this year, there are still two very important roles that need to be filled.
Both starting post players from last season — Brianna Maitlen and Zaidy Frank — were lost to graduation. Frank, who would have been a senior this year, graduated early.
McNutt said a committee of four players will probably work to fill those two post positions.
"Jenna Taylor and Natalie will play inside some, then Camryn Somers and Olivia Nielsen," he said. "We have four girls to fill that spot. i don't know if any one will fill that spot, but I think as a committee we'll fill it."
With versatile players in Mostek and Somers, the Panthers can change their offensive looks based on what the defense gives them.
"They can play inside and outside depending on how the defense wants to play us," McNutt said. "We have some options there. Olivia and Jenna, they both can step out and shoot a little bit. It will make us a little more versatile in what we want to do on offense."
Experienced bench
McNutt will have the luxury of an experienced bench to substitute with, as well.
Losing only three seniors from last year's team, nearly everyone who suited varsity a year ago is suiting again this year.
Maria Mostek and Sadie Jones both suited last year and return to help fill out the bench this year.
Taylor Briley, Gracie Russell and Caitlin McIlravy will also suit varsity.
"Sadie Jones, she didn't get to play a whole lot as a junior, but she was on the varsity," McNutt said. "Again, we have a lot of girls who maybe didn't get to play a lot, but they were with the varsity and know what it takes. That'll definitely help for our bench players."
Another player added into the mix is junior Hannah Hagle, who is out for the first time.
"Hannah Hagle came out this year, which was good to help out on our numbers," McNutt said. "She hasn't been out since eighth grade."
H-10 outlook
The Hawkeye 10 Conference won't be any easier this year.
Three teams from the conference made it to the state tournament last year, as Harlan reached the state championship game.
"It'll be just as good, if not better," McNutt said about the conference. "Kuemper will be good. Obviously, Harlan will be the team to beat. Lewis Central will be good. Red Oak will be good. I hear Shenandoah, they've got their two all-conference players back, and they have a 6-0 freshman who has been playing well in practice, I guess."
The Panthers finished eighth in the 10-team league last year, finishing with a 3-10 record.
Council Bluffs St. Albert gets added to the league this year after the Saintes finished 11-9 last year.
"The conference is really good," McNutt said. "It will be a tough go again. We'll just have to be ready to go."
The non-conference slate will look slightly different this year than in past years for Creston, but it will still be tough.
The Panthers open play Monday at the Raiderette Tipoff Tournament in Mount Ayr against Orient-Macksburg. Creston would play either Mount Ayr or Lamoni on Tuesday.
Also on the non-conference slate is a state qualifier from last year in Winterset. Other games include Chariton and Interstate 35 in home games and a road trip to Clarke of Osceola.
"It's a little bit of a different nonconference schedule compared to past years," McNutt said. "But, it will be good to get a change in there and see some different teams, and see what we can do."
The SWCC Jamboree scheduled for Thursday night was cancelled because of weather. Creston will host Nodaway Valley in a jamboree game (two eight-minute quarters) at 5:45 tonight at Creston High School. There is no admission fee and the public is invited to attend.
Seniors — Chelcee Downing, Sadie Jones, Olivia Nielsen.
Juniors — Hannah Hagle, Maria Mostek, Brenna Baker, Natalie Mostek.
Sophomores — Camryn Somers, Taylor Briley, Jenna Taylor, Caitlin McIlravy, Jessica Beatty, Caitlin McIlravy, Becca Ross.
Freshmen — Lexie Little, Cydney Seley, Logan Pettit, Rachel Shepherd, Cammy Rutherford, Madison Callahan.
Nov. 25 — at Raiderette Tipoff Tournament, 6 p.m.
Nov. 26 — at Raiderette Tipoff Tournament, TBD
Dec. 2 — at Winterset, 7:30 p.m.
Dec. 6 — at Glenwood, 7:30 p.m.
Dec. 10 — vs. Shenandoah, 7:30 p.m.
Dec. 13 — vs. Atlantic, 7:30 p.m.
Dec. 17 — at Harlan, 6 p.m.
Dec. 20 — at Carroll Kuemper, 6 p.m.
Jan. 3 — at Denison-Schleswig, 6 p.m.
Jan. 6 — vs. Interstate 35, 7:30 p.m.
Jan. 7 — vs. Lewis Central, 7:30 p.m.
Jan. 14 — at Red Oak, 6 p.m.
Jan. 17 — vs. Denison-Schleswig, 7:30 p.m.
Jan. 20 — at Clarke, 7:30 p.m.
Jan. 21 — at Clarinda, 7:30 p.m.
Jan. 24 — at Council Bluffs St. Albert, 6 p.m.
Jan. 28 — vs. Chariton, 6 p.m.
Jan. 31 — at Shenandoah, 7:30 p.m.
Feb. 4 — vs. Glenwood, 7:30 p.m.
Feb. 7 — vs. Red Oak, 6 p.m.
Feb. 8 — at Atlantic, 5 p.m.
Feb. 13 — vs. Clarinda, 7:30 p.m.


text:
A smaller version of our Black Hole Messenger, the Mini Messenger balances the need to carry day-to-day vitals with the desire to stay light and move freely.
We promote fair labor practices, safe working conditions and environmental responsibility throughout the Patagonia supply chain.
Below are the suppliers that impact the Patagonia Black Hole™ Mini Messenger 12L
View our supply chain


text:
Lung cancer treatment side effects
All treatments have potential side effects, but the extent to which you experience them will be unique to you and will depend on the treatment given. Not everyone experiences debilitating side effects but it's important to understand those you might expect from your treatment and to talk with your treatment team about any you experience so they can be managed. Many side effects go away when treatment ends but some may persist and become a long term side effect or late effect.
Overviews of lung cancer treatment side effects
Lung cancer side effects (ASCO's Cancer.net)
Tips for managing side effects of cancer treatment (Life with Lung Cancer: Information from the experts)
Side effect management (Lung Cancer Alliance)
Treatment-related side effects: Take control (Patient Resource)
See also:
Long term and late effects of treament


text:
@cracksloth: What I have made is tabs for proper MDI windows, but I'm thinking of adding tabs for menu items instead, as most MDI apps have a Window menu listing the MDIs. This could also be used for a lot of other apps.
There already exist programs for collecting windows together, like Jedi Window Dock.


text:
The browser you are using is out of date and is no longer supported. To view and use this site correctly, please update your browser to the latest version.
4 March 2008The expert Rangers at one of Historic Scotland's top visitor attractions, Linlithgow Palace, have developed free fun-filled events to keep the kids entertained over the Easter holidays. From building birds' nests and investigating hibernating creatures to discovering the secrets of camouflage, there are interactive adventures for families to enjoy.
For further information