Related Communities :  Central |  Ski |  Skateboard |  Snowmobile |  Mountain Bike |  Surf |  Wakeboard |  More...

Skip Navigation
You are viewing this website with either CSS support turned off, or are not using a CSS compliant browser. This will significantly reduce your Colonies.com experience.

 Advertisement Advertise With Us

Daily Barns

  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". Welcome to stage one.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Greetings shredders! For those of you that read my blog regularly, you may have noticed that lasts week's instalment was somewhat metaphysical (in the smart stupid way). This week I've decided to get back to basics a little bit and stick to something that I know and that I'm that sure more people can relate to.

I'm sure there are many of you who have been in a situation where you've given your opinion on something and have been told to stick to what you know and not try to cogitate on things beyond your area of expertise. Well as snowboarders, I think we are all super geniuses in our own right. Last week's Daily Barns serves as an example of what can come out of a snowboarder's coconut, no matter how ludicrous (in fact the more ludicrous the better). Lukas Huffman is a snowboarder and generally thought to be a very smart fellow; he's working on a book/DVD called IR77 which explores the raw side of riding so it's clearly not uncommon for snowboarders to have good ideas. What does this all mean? Snowboarders know stuff. The story I'm about to relate to you provides evidence that when you have a question, ask a snowboarder, we know everything.

A friend of mine is currently unhappy with her job. We used to work for the same company a few years ago and since then I've changed jobs several times. She thought she'd ask my advice on leaving a company without burning any bridges. Being the nice guy that I am, I thought I'd help her out in any way I could reminding her that I don't have much in terms of “industry experience” so my advice would be strictly extrapolated from logical foundations. She was cool with that so, fighting my initial instinct to use this as an opportunity to find out what it takes to get fired, I proceeded to tell her what I thought would be the best way to plan an “exit strategy” without ruffling too many feathers. Over the next hour, we mapped out a plan based on a “difference of ethics” which, if set up properly, would make it appear as though her departure would be mutually beneficial for both parties (I should probably go into politics). I don't want to get into the details of the plan here since it was pretty long, but let me just say that the word “endgame” came up on at least one occasion.

With a plan of action in hand, my friend was in good spirits. I told her however, that she should ask for other opinions; usually if you take the sum of everyone's point of view, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. She decided to ask Mr. P, the former VP of finance and CFO of the company we had previously worked for. This guy is a big wheel locally in business; a few years ago he was on the list of top 40 executives under 40 so naturally he'd be a wealth of experience and knowledge. His advice dimmed her spirits however, because he effectively told her that she needed to stay put for a while and that there was no way to part ways on good terms. When she told me this, I said “OK let's put this in perspective for a minute”

Mr. P = Top 40 under 40 in business.

Me = Snowboarder

“The decision is a no brainer” I said. In the end, she agreed with me and decided to take my advice over Mr. P's.



So the morals of this story are the following:

  • When looking for truth, take the sum of all opinions first; you'll find the answer somewhere in the middle.

  • Ethical reservations are always a good tool to justify leaving a job and doing so on good terms. Alternatively you can accuse the boss of giving the receptionist herpes (unless you are the receptionist in which case it should be the handle bar mustashio'd custodian).

  • If you have an important life decision to make, ask a snowboarder we know everything. Maybe Snowboard.com should be the new Wikipedia... let the knowledge be shared.

  • Since my coconut is in such demand, I'm getting a helmet for snowboarding; I wouldn't want to forget something.

I'll leave you all now to ponder about these morals. But in the spirit of sharing the knowledge (a good friend of mine once told me that sharing is caring), there should be an advice column run by snowboarders; I think I'll call it “Ask Dr. Shred.” Send questions for Dr. Shred via personal message, I'll see to it that he gets them and will do my best to get him motivated to impart his eminent wisdom. Please be sure to put “Ask Dr. Shred” in the subject so I'll know which messages are for him, and which are for me, and don't feel bad if your queries go unanswered, after all Dr. Shred IS a snowboarder and may be too busy slashing some pow to slash the metaphysical. So until I receive universal enlightenment...

Keep Shreddin' the GNAR!

J.




View Comments Add/View Comments (0) Tags:Ask Dr. Shred, Snowboarders Know Everthing
Published by jr_barns: 5:36 PM

Thursday, November 02, 2006

 

For those of you who have been following my blog, you might remember that a while back myself and a buddy were mistaken, by some acquaintances, as being a gay couple (See “Why the Fonz Rides a Motorbike”). This prompted me to stop being lazy and set my mind to finding a girlfriend (paraphrasing Tolstoï to boot). Similarly, my buddy Gurbir (who was also wrapped up in this whole “are those dudes dating” fiasco), set out to find himself a lady friend. This was not directly a result of said fiasco however; he had a few nibbles at a singles mixer we had previously attended.

If you recall, this singles mixer was full of cougars (there were non-cougars there as well, but when they are bat-shi*t insane, the cougars are more entertaining -- see “Cougar Hunting for the Criminally Insane”). In order to deal with these predators, much beer was consumed by me. Which leads to my first meeting of Gurbir's current girlfriend. I don't remember actually meeting her that night (although she did look familiar the next time I did), but apparently in my drunken, stumbly stupor, brief introductions had been made.

A few weeks went by, things between Gurbir and his new dame were moving along quite well. He decided that he should invite her out to one of our weekly Tuesday appy night outings. He felt the need however, to warn her about what may potentially come out of my mouth and not to take anything I say too seriously. This is probably wise as many find my humour somewhat offensive. Well prepared for the worst, Gurbir's new lady friend seemed to be very cool and reasonably tolerant of my jokes. She even commented that my humour was in fact not overly offensive despite the fact that Gurbir had tagged me as the ISO standard for offensiveness.  Swell, I'm now a metric.

The ISO is an international standards body that overseas standard measurement units. To understand what it means to be the ISO standard of offensiveness, one needs to be introduced to the concept of applied commentary. An applied commentary is either an insult or a complement which has a degree of offensiveness measured in Juniors (J). The following is an overview of Junior's three laws of offensiveness and how they apply to the standard measure of one's vexation.

 


The three laws of Offensiveness

Junior's First Law of Offensiveness:

  1. Every entity in a state of uniform vexation tends to remain in that state of vexation unless an external commentary is directed to it.

This is analogous to Galileo's concept of inertia which is often termed simply “The Law of Inertia”.

Junior's Second Law of Offensiveness:

  1. The relationship between an entity's indifference i, it's level of disgust o, and the applied commentary C is C = io. Applied commentary and disgust are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the commentary vector ranges from revolt to delight and is the same as the direction of the disgust vector.

This is the most powerful of Junior's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do revolt and delight change when commentary are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Junior's 2nd law and the dynamics of Aristotle: An applied commentary, or insult, causes only a change in level of offence (a degree of offensiveness); it does not maintain its vexatious properties as Aristotle held for velocity.

This is analogous to the difference between Newton's second law and Aristotle's law of inertia. Under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton, an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in velocity). Similarly, under Junior's Law, an entity with a certain level of vexation maintains that level of vexation unless an applied commentary acts on it to cause revolt or delight. Applied commentary can be either introspective or external. Introspective commentary is the reason why it can be observed that time heals all wounds; introspective delight is an applied commentary which affects changes in disgust. Introspective revolt is self destructive and stupid.

Junior's Third Law of Offensiveness:

  1. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we tell a guy his girlfriend is fat. Physical or verbal application of resulting commentary will be proportionate to the degree of offensiveness of the original insult. (Note: This type of behaviour is not condoned by the author of this blog unless the result is humorous or amusing).

That pretty much summarizes the concept of the J units for measuring offensiveness. Here are a few conclusions and observations about Junior's Laws themselves and the method that was followed to elucidate them:

  • Sobriety directly affects one's indifference. The drunker the guy, the less fat his girlfriend should be, 'nuff said.

  • In general, my friends have a very high level of indifference, otherwise they don't remain my friends for very long.

  • Further research should be conducted on the implications of Junior's three laws of offensiveness on the phenomena known as “the awesomeness factor”.

  • Becoming the ISO standard of offensiveness is both flattering and vexing and is a potential obstacle in actually finding a girlfriend.

If you found any of this at all enlightening, or useful, you may want to consider lowering your threshold for indifference. Since becoming the ISO standard for offensiveness, I've had to do just that and reconsider some of the vile things that come out of my mouth. The whole experience has been positive however; since this change in attitude, I've started dating a girl who hasn't run out on me after one or two dates. So until the next instalment of the Daily Barns, think positive thoughts that your favourite retard will rise above and strengthen his inter-personal relationships. Until then, pray for snow.

Keep Shreddin' the GNAR!

J.





View Comments Add/View Comments (2) Tags:Useless, research, standard, offensiveness
Published by jr_barns: 11:50 AM
Updated On: 11/3/2006 at 9:20 AM


Problems, Comments, Suggestions

About |  Advertise |  Jobs |  Community Index |  Email |  FAQ |  Terms
Copyright ©2004 Colonies.com