Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] My plans for solo building

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Don Bowen <don.bowen AT earthlink.net>
  • To: bartermn AT epix.net, homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] My plans for solo building
  • Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:05:11 -0800

At 12/11/2006, you wrote:
I thought I had a book with a chapter on vertical log building but can't
find it; maybe it was borrowed from a library. Anyways, do you have any
recommended websites or books about it?

I am not sure how many of these are good, I have not tested them all.
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vertical+log+building&btnG=Google+Search>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vertical+log+building&btnG=Google+S\
earch
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/cheap-shelters/message/2772
<http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/cheap-shelters/message/2797>http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/cheap-shelters/message/2797
http://www.alaskacabin.net/
<http://www.farmshow.com/issues/28/05/280501.asp>http://www.farmshow.com/issues/28/05/280501.asp
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/cheap-shelters/message/4522
<<http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=pi>http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=piece+on+piece%2C+log+construction&btnG=Search
<http://www.google.com/search?q=poteaux-enterre&num=20&hl=en&lr=&newwindo>http://www.google.com/search?q=poteaux-enterre&num=20&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&filter=0
<http://tribes.tribe.net/cheapshelter/photos/70b56d4c-b3f7-459a-af0a-84e>http://tribes.tribe.net/cheapshelter/photos/70b56d4c-b3f7-459a-af0a-84ec58c15cb7
<http://images.library.uiuc.edu:8081/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=any&CISOFI>http://images.library.uiuc.edu:8081/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=any&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=/tdc&CISOBOX1=construction



Don Bowen Awl Knotted Up KI6DIU
http://www.braingarage.com
My travel journal
http://www.braingarage.com/Dons/Travels/journal/Journal.html

I am omnivagant.
From Clansgian AT wmconnect.com Tue Dec 12 10:15:49 2006
Return-Path: <Clansgian AT wmconnect.com>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-m27.mx.aol.com (imo-m27.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.8])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05A4C00D
for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:15:49 -0500
(EST)
Received: from Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
by imo-m27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id 3.be6.a497892 (48552)
for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:15:28 -0500
(EST)
From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
Message-ID: <be6.a497892.32b0218e AT wmconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:15:26 EST
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 11501
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Insurance
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: <homestead.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
<mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
<mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:15:49 -0000



I can agree with the idea that lifestyle choices affect risk. No
argument there. My problem was in the "absoluteness" that you and Gene
seem to expound upon.



And to me it is the absoluteness that you and Marie and Lynda expound upon. In the end it is a matter of degrees. For the overall population I'd say the stats show that genetics plays a very minor role and by and large a role we can do nothing about. When people advocate the heatlhy vigorous life, it seems as if the reply is, "It's of no use, I had an uncle that fell over dead when he was in the peak of health, so there's no point in any of us being careful about our choices,"


Wait, you were the one who said genetics doesn't matter that personal
choices determine disease, now you are saying that one *can* be
predisposed??

I'm just playing along with your game.


Because if you are saying that personal choice can

override genetics, to me, that's the equivalent of believing in the use
of faith healing/curing....it works for a small minority, but overall,
it only works slightly better than chance.

No. It's a matter of your not being able to do anything about the one and able to do everything about the other.



My family history makes for a strong genetic case, but not so strong a
case for the 'lifestyle choices' argument.

Then here's where we disagree. The lifestyle "argument" isn't something that applies to some but not to others. Remember, Bev, we are talking about risks. Overweight and smoking puts a woman at risk for ovarian cancer regardless of her genetics. (I'm making these numbers up for arithmatic's sake) Let's suppose lifestyle choices put you at 4 times the risk for ovarian cancer than the "norm" population. Let's suppose your genetic history put you at 6 times the risk as the population as a whole. It doesn't mean that the 6 times risk swallows up the 4. They concant. You are at 24 times the risk rather than at just 6. I know that's simplistic but you get the principle.


Nowhere in your note did you prove that "lifestyle choice" provides
better odds than "modern medicine".

Yes I did. Just add up the numbers. It doesn't even come close.

In fact, on one hand you are


_I_ was talking about genetic predisposition, not prevention or cures.
IMO, you equated genetics with astrology, the former being a
"hard/objective biological science" that is really not all that
interpretive(you either have a gene or you don't) and the other being a
"soft/ambiguous pseudo-science"

Yes you either have a gene our you don't. Also, the star is in the heavens or it isn't. So far the two are identical in their MO. The way genetics is applied now of days, it is just as soft/ambiguous as astrology. Astrology had (at least) to affects on its adherents: 1) They used it to explain everything that happened to them. 2)The fell into a stupor of fatalism not attempting to do anything to improve their lot. After all, it's written in the stars, what can you do. The modern misuse of genetics has exactly the same effect. It is used to explain everything with (grant supported researchers) looking to find "the" gene that causes everything from bad personality, to homosexuality, to obesity. Then because of the popular geneocentric view of things, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says, "What can you do, I have bad genes." In that genetics is exactly like astrology. When astrology was all the rage (when it itself was science) there were tales aplenty to "prove" it. Two brothers as like as peas in a pod go into business in the same circumstances and one makes a lot of money and one goes broke .... it's in the stars, that's the ONLY possible explaination.

So what's a person to do? We all have our anecdotal stories. Mine are very different from yours. I can recite two score of people I know who have died of invasive diseases and they were overweight, smokers under stress, or morr often all three. All the men of my father's generation in my family who smoked died of cancer before they were 75 and ALL of the one's who didn't are still alive. We've all got our stories. So the only thing to do is to look at the wider statistical picture and there the tale is told in stark contrast that life choices affect the ODDs far more than genetics. Not 50/50 but more like 98/2. And I wouldn't be surprised to find in the future that, just like astrology, we've been attributiting a great deal to genetics that has other explainations.



> But what I find unfathomable is the hot and quick defense of the role
> of genetics in something like ovarian cancer and yet an activity > that increases the odds of contracting and dying from the disease by > 50% is dismissed lightly rather than an abstenance from it being > championed.

Tell it to my dead non-smoking grandmothers and great aunts.

Bev, off to go light up.






--
BevanRon of EarthNSky Farm NW Georgia USDA Zone 7
34.498N 85.076W Bev is Earth, Ron is Sky
_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/clansgian%40wmconnect.com
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead











Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page