Alcohol stoves

Mark South said:

(*) But I'm sure Gordon Brown will place a tax on
additional stoves soon after taxing walkers on their
mileage.

Nah, Michael Howard will be the problem; here's sure to
allow land-owners to set their own access charge; per field
crossed, per gate opened, etc... all in the name of equality
of course.

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

FACT: it may be a very good idea to leave the stove
behind.

FACT: it may be a very good idea to take a stove.

FACT: it may not be necessary to eat for 48 hrs.

FACT: the _principle_ (there's only one) of lightweight
hiking is not to take anything that isn't necessary. If
you are going to need to melt snow to drink, then you need
a stove. If you are a diabetic you will need to

eat

Quoted message said:

at shortish intervals. So even going ultralightweight for
a single day on the hill will involve food.

Principles that mislead are not useful principles.

Do you guys get it yet?

The simple point I was making which I know I've said on here
before and certainly isn't to most people's taste is that
for the same amount of energy it is less weight to carry
certain foods which don't require cooking than dehydrated
food and all the stuff to cook it with. For a daily 12000 kj
of energy you need 550g of chocolate, 570g biscuits or 470g
of peanuts compared to 790 g of pasta plus another 800g or
so for the kind of stove and pot I once took.

But I only worked this out as a minor matter of interest
because I don't like cooking anyway so if anyone who's
researched such stuff knows of a food
+ stove + fuel + cooking gear combination that gives you
more energy for less weight than a combination of
chocolate, nuts and biscuits over a few days feel free to
correct my assumption.

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Mark South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Carrying a stove at all is rather contrary to
> > > the principles of lightweight hiking.
>
> > Could I just be the first one to say
> > "balderdash!"?
>
> You can but you are wrong.

Quoted message said:

You forgot to add "IMHO".

No I did not.

Quoted message said:

You did, it wasn't in the post you made.

Don't give up the day job. You're worse than useless as a
mind reader.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Hiking carries no connotations of overnighting,
> rather the reverse in fact. And even backpacking can
> be accomplished without the luxury of hot food and
> drink if minimizing weight is the highest priority.

Quoted message said:

If minimising weight is the highest priority, then
stay on the nudist

beach

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and don't walk further than 100m from the beach bar.

Tell that to the nutter who has just walked the length
of Great Britain dressed in no more than footware and a
rucksack.

Quoted message said:

If he were really dedicated about travelling light he
could have ditched the footwear and the sac.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If your principles don't survive the test of reductio
ad absurdum they

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

useless.

You should try applying that to your own absurd stance.

Quoted message said:

Translation: nyah nyah nyah.

Wrong again. It says exactly what it means.

You are the one who started this interchange with a
infantile response to a perfectly reasonable observation and
followed up a smokescreen of unlikely scenerios. The subject
was lightweight hiking before you transferred it to the
nudist beach.

--
Roger

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from "Mark South"
<[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > Carrying a stove at all is rather contrary to
> > > > the principles

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > lightweight hiking.
> >
> > > Could I just be the first one to say
> > > "balderdash!"?
> >
> > You can but you are wrong.

> You forgot to add "IMHO".

No I did not.

Quoted message said:

You did, it wasn't in the post you made.

Don't give up the day job. You're worse than useless as a
mind reader.

You need to read a greater variety of newsgroups if that's
the sharpest insult you can work out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Hiking carries no connotations of overnighting,
> > rather the reverse in fact. And even backpacking
> > can

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > accomplished without the luxury of hot food and
> > drink if

minimizing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > weight is the highest priority.

> If minimising weight is the highest priority, then
> stay on the

nudist

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beach

Quoted message said:

> and don't walk further than 100m from the beach bar.

Tell that to the nutter who has just walked the length
of Great

Britain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dressed in no more than footware and a rucksack.

Quoted message said:

If he were really dedicated about travelling light he
could have ditched

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

footwear and the sac.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If your principles don't survive the test of
> reductio ad absurdum

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are

Quoted message said:

> useless.

You should try applying that to your own absurd
stance.

Quoted message said:

Translation: nyah nyah nyah.

Wrong again. It says exactly what it means.

What you said doesn't "mean" anything, it "implies" that my
stance is absurd. My stance is that the lightweight hiking
idea nowhere contains the requirement that one travel
without a stove.

You may have gleaned that impression, and in fact seem to
have. There is a simple explanation for that.

Quoted message said:

You are the one who started this interchange with a
infantile response to a perfectly reasonable observation
and followed up a smokescreen of unlikely scenerios. The
subject was lightweight hiking before you transferred it
to the nudist beach.

This is hilarious. The subject was alcohol stoves (vide
subject: line) before you unilaterally declared them an
illegitimate subject of discussion.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark South said:

(*) But I'm sure Gordon Brown will place a tax on
additional stoves soon after taxing walkers on their
mileage.

Nah, Michael Howard will be the problem; here's sure to
allow land-owners to set their own access charge; per
field crossed, per gate opened, etc... all in the name of
equality of course.

The only certain thing is that whoever is Chancellor of the
Exchequer will be trying to tighten the screws on you. Don't
expect walking to remain exempt.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"AndyP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

FACT: it may be a very good idea to leave the stove
behind.

FACT: it may be a very good idea to take a stove.

FACT: it may not be necessary to eat for 48 hrs.

FACT: the _principle_ (there's only one) of lightweight
hiking is not to take anything that isn't necessary. If
you are going to need to melt

snow

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to drink, then you need a stove. If you are a diabetic
you will need to

eat

Quoted message said:

at shortish intervals. So even going ultralightweight
for a single day

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the hill will involve food.

Principles that mislead are not useful principles.

Do you guys get it yet?

The simple point I was making which I know I've said on
here before and certainly isn't to most people's taste is
that for the same amount of

energy

Quoted message said:

it is less weight to carry certain foods which don't
require cooking than dehydrated food and all the stuff to
cook it with. For a daily 12000 kj

of

Quoted message said:

energy you need 550g of chocolate, 570g biscuits or 470g
of peanuts compared to 790 g of pasta plus another 800g or
so for the kind of stove

and

Quoted message said:

pot I once took.

That's exactly right, and I both agree and travel on this
basis myself a lot of the time.

But if I'm taking a friend who simply can't function without
a cup of coffee on a spring morning, I'm going to take the
lightest stove/fuel/coffee cup I can, not say "the principle
of lightweight hiking is do it without a stove or don't go
at all!" Because that would be a stupid conclusion to reach.

Quoted message said:

But I only worked this out as a minor matter of interest
because I don't like cooking anyway so if anyone who's
researched such stuff knows of a

food

Quoted message said:

+ stove + fuel + cooking gear combination that gives you
more energy for less weight than a combination of
chocolate, nuts and biscuits over a few days feel free
to correct my assumption.

I don't think you are wrong. I do think that most people
can't eat like that for more than a couple days before
beginning to suffer digestive tract discomfort and possibly
worse. Eating isn't only about energy, otherwise you'd eat
the grenade instead of the chicken (see .sig)
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I don't think you are wrong. I do think that most people
can't eat like that for more than a couple days before
beginning to suffer digestive

tract

Quoted message said:

discomfort and possibly worse.

Oh, I live off a diet of pork pies, crisps and chocolate
at home too.

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Mark South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > > Carrying a stove at all is rather contrary
> > > > > to the principles of lightweight hiking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > Could I just be the first one to say
> > > > "balderdash!"?

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't give up the day job. You're worse than useless as
a mind reader.

Quoted message said:

You need to read a greater variety of newsgroups if that's
the sharpest insult you can work out.

Unlike you I was just trying to be civilised.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You should try applying that to your own absurd
> stance.

Quoted message said:

Translation: nyah nyah nyah.

Wrong again. It says exactly what it means.

Quoted message said:

What you said doesn't "mean" anything, it "implies" that
my stance is absurd. My stance is that the lightweight
hiking idea nowhere contains the requirement that one
travel without a stove.

Your stance is absurd. Lightweight hiking only has 2
requirements. The obvious one that the nature of the
exercise is hiking and the other the one that has completely
passed you by, that saving weight is also an objective.
Taking a stove on a day walk in the UK is not normal
practice. AFAIK it is so uncommon that it doesn't even rank
as abnormal practice when weight is a serious issue.

If you had bothered to actually comprehend the content of
the posting you dismissed so cavaliarly you should have
noticed the op wasn't denying you the right to take your
stove for a walk if that is what turns you on.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are the one who started this interchange with a
infantile response to a perfectly reasonable observation
and followed up a smokescreen of unlikely scenerios. The
subject was lightweight hiking before you transferred it
to the nudist beach.

Quoted message said:

This is hilarious. The subject was alcohol stoves (vide
subject: line) before you unilaterally declared them an
illegitimate subject of discussion.

But the subject of our little subset was a perfectly
reasonable comment about lightweight hiking. It is you who
keeps introducing false reasoning in order to shift the
spotlight from your own stupidity.

--
Roger

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from "Mark
South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > > > Carrying a stove at all is rather contrary
> > > > > > to the

principles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > > > of lightweight hiking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > > Could I just be the first one to say
> > > > > "balderdash!"?

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't give up the day job. You're worse than useless
as a mind reader.

Quoted message said:

You need to read a greater variety of newsgroups if
that's the sharpest insult you can work out.

Unlike you I was just trying to be civilised.

Need a bit more practice then. But keep trying.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > You should try applying that to your own absurd
> > stance.

> Translation: nyah nyah nyah.

Wrong again. It says exactly what it means.

Quoted message said:

What you said doesn't "mean" anything, it "implies" that
my stance is absurd. My stance is that the lightweight
hiking idea nowhere contains

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

requirement that one travel without a stove.

Your stance is absurd. Lightweight hiking only has 2
requirements. The obvious one that the nature of the
exercise is hiking and the other the one that has
completely passed you by, that saving weight is also an
objective. Taking a stove on a day walk in the UK is
not normal practice. AFAIK it is so uncommon that it
doesn't even rank as abnormal practice when weight is a
serious issue.

The original question did not introduce the constraint of
talking about day walks in the UK.

Quoted message said:

If you had bothered to actually comprehend the content of
the posting you dismissed so cavaliarly you should have
noticed the op wasn't denying you the right to take your
stove for a walk if that is what turns you on.

You are not a very good mindreader either. But do feel free
to try to get a day job.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are the one who started this interchange with a
infantile response to a perfectly reasonable
observation and followed up a smokescreen of unlikely
scenerios. The subject was lightweight hiking before
you transferred it to the nudist beach.

Quoted message said:

This is hilarious. The subject was alcohol stoves (vide
subject: line) before you unilaterally declared them an
illegitimate subject of

discussion.

Quoted message said:

But the subject of our little subset was a perfectly
reasonable comment about lightweight hiking. It is you who
keeps introducing false reasoning in order to shift the
spotlight from your own stupidity.

How many more posts will it take before you compare me to
(insert evil dictator of choice)?

Do you come from some unusual place where they've never
heard of disagreement and so can't handle it?
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark South said:

(*) But I'm sure Gordon Brown will place a tax on
additional stoves

soon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

after taxing walkers on their mileage.

Nah, Michael Howard will be the problem; here's sure to
allow land-owners to set their own access charge; per
field crossed, per gate opened, etc... all in the name
of equality of course.

The only certain thing is that whoever is Chancellor of
the Exchequer will be trying to tighten the screws on you.
Don't expect walking to remain exempt.
--

Oh but I do. We've just had an idiot on espousing those
ideas, not a lot of support. It isn't going to happen. Ever.

KRO

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Mark South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Original proposition (AndyP) "Carrying a stove at all is
rather contrary to the principles of lightweight hiking."

Original response (Mark South) "Could I just be the first
one to say "balderdash!"?"

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What you said doesn't "mean" anything, it "implies"
that my stance is absurd. My stance is that the
lightweight hiking idea nowhere contains the
requirement that one travel without a stove.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your stance is absurd. Lightweight hiking only has 2
requirements. The obvious one that the nature of the
exercise is hiking and the other the one that has
completely passed you by, that saving weight is also an
objective. Taking a stove on a day walk in the UK is not
normal practice. AFAIK it is so uncommon that it doesn't
even rank as abnormal practice when weight is a serious
issue.

Quoted message said:

The original question did not introduce the constraint of
talking about day walks in the UK.

This is a UK ng. Unless the context demands otherwise the
arena is the UK. I didn't make the original proposition
(above) but since multi day trips are almost always referred
to as backpacking I think it is fair to assume that the
reference was to day trips but that is beside the point. As
I pointed out in my opening remarks stoves aren't necessary
even on multi day trips.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You are the one who started this interchange with a
> infantile response to a perfectly reasonable
> observation and followed up a smokescreen of
> unlikely scenarios. The subject was lightweight
> hiking before you transferred it to the nudist
> beach.

Quoted message said:

This is hilarious. The subject was alcohol stoves
(vide subject: line) before you unilaterally declared
them an illegitimate subject of

discussion.

Quoted message said:

But the subject of our little subset was a perfectly
reasonable comment about lightweight hiking. It is you
who keeps introducing false reasoning in order to shift
the spotlight from your own stupidity.

Quoted message said:

How many more posts will it take before you compare me to
(insert evil dictator of choice)?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Quoted message said:

Do you come from some unusual place where they've never
heard of disagreement and so can't handle it?

Disagreement doesn't bother me if it is rational and I can
handle it even if the opposition isn't rational. However you
need to be more than slightly disturbed (or stupid) to think
that dismissing a sensible and non inflammatory statement
with "balderdash!" is rational disagreement.

--
Roger

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Original proposition (AndyP) "Carrying a stove at all is
rather contrary to the principles of lightweight hiking."

Original response (Mark South) "Could I just be the first
one to say "balderdash!"?"

<snip argument>

Quoted message said:

This is a UK ng. Unless the context demands otherwise the
arena is the UK. I didn't make the original proposition
(above) but since multi day trips are almost always
referred to as backpacking I think it is fair to assume
that the reference was to day trips but that is beside the
point. As I pointed out in my opening remarks stoves
aren't necessary even on multi day trips.

As the poster of the original statement I have expanded on
what I meant elsewhere. That being that pasta + stove + fuel
+ pans, etc weighs more than the amount of chocolate,
biscuits etc needed to give you the same amount of energy. I
was referring to backpacking but just quoting the phrase
"contrary to the principles of lightweight hiking" from the
post I was replying to.

I don't mind people saying "balderdash" to my comments by
the way...just don't dis' my mum innit?

"AndyP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Original proposition (AndyP) "Carrying a stove at all is
rather contrary to the principles of lightweight
hiking."

Original response (Mark South) "Could I just be the
first one to say "balderdash!"?"

<snip argument>

Quoted message said:

This is a UK ng. Unless the context demands otherwise
the arena is the UK. I didn't make the original
proposition (above) but since multi day trips are almost
always referred to as backpacking I think it is fair to
assume that the reference was to day trips but that is
beside the point. As I pointed out in my opening remarks
stoves aren't necessary even on multi day trips.

As the poster of the original statement I have expanded on
what I meant elsewhere. That being that pasta + stove +
fuel + pans, etc weighs more than the amount of chocolate,
biscuits etc needed to give you the same amount of energy.
I was referring to backpacking but just quoting the phrase
"contrary to the principles of lightweight hiking" from
the post I was replying to.

I have to confess that I originally assumed we were talking
about backpacking because I couldn't see that the stove
question would have arisen otherwise.

Quoted message said:

I don't mind people saying "balderdash" to my comments by
the way...just don't dis' my mum innit?

The "balderdash" remark was a statement of disagreement.
That's how you took it and we've had some further
discussion about it.

I'm absolutely certain that your mum is a fine woman BTW,
because (a) you know how to cope with disagreement and (b)
you have good posting manners :-)

--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"KRO" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:09:47 +0100, "Mark South"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>(*) But I'm sure Gordon Brown will place a tax on
>additional stoves

soon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>after taxing walkers on their mileage.

Nah, Michael Howard will be the problem; here's sure
to allow land-owners to set their own access charge;
per field crossed, per gate opened, etc... all in the
name of equality of course.

The only certain thing is that whoever is Chancellor of
the Exchequer

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be trying to tighten the screws on you. Don't expect
walking to remain exempt.
--

Oh but I do. We've just had an idiot on espousing
those ideas, not a lot of support. It isn't going to
happen. Ever.

Here's hoping.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from "Mark
South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Original proposition (AndyP) "Carrying a stove at all is
rather contrary to the principles of lightweight hiking."

Original response (Mark South) "Could I just be the first
one to say "balderdash!"?"

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What you said doesn't "mean" anything, it "implies"
> that my stance

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> absurd. My stance is that the lightweight hiking
> idea nowhere

contains

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the requirement that one travel without a stove.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your stance is absurd. Lightweight hiking only has 2
requirements. The obvious one that the nature of the
exercise is hiking and the other

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one that has completely passed you by, that saving
weight is also an objective. Taking a stove on a day
walk in the UK is not normal practice. AFAIK it is so
uncommon that it doesn't even rank as

abnormal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

practice when weight is a serious issue.

Quoted message said:

The original question did not introduce the constraint
of talking about

day

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

walks in the UK.

This is a UK ng.

Thank you for explaining that little point. The fact that
the newsgroup name starts with "uk." probably isn't enough
of a clue for most people.

Quoted message said:

Unless the context demands otherwise the arena is the UK.

Everybody here will take note that they need your explicit
permission in writing, in advance, to discuss issues that
affect regions other than the UK.

Quoted message said:

I didn't make the original proposition (above) but since
multi day trips are almost always referred to as
backpacking I think it is fair to assume that the
reference was to day trips but that is beside the point.

Beside the point and incorrect. You may notice that you have
slipped into a pattern here.

Quoted message said:

As I pointed out in my opening remarks stoves aren't
necessary even on multi day trips.

That depends on the trip. You can't deduce the necessity or
otherwise of a stove without knowing about the trip.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > You are the one who started this interchange with
> > a infantile

response

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > to a perfectly reasonable observation and followed
> > up a

smokescreen of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > unlikely scenarios. The subject was lightweight
> > hiking before you transferred it to the nudist
> > beach.

> This is hilarious. The subject was alcohol stoves
> (vide subject:

line)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> before you unilaterally declared them an
> illegitimate subject of

discussion.

Quoted message said:

But the subject of our little subset was a perfectly
reasonable

comment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about lightweight hiking. It is you who keeps
introducing false reasoning in order to shift the
spotlight from your own stupidity.

Quoted message said:

How many more posts will it take before you compare me
to (insert evil dictator of choice)?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Gosh, what a clever and novel riposte. You really have me
slumped on the ropes here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you come from some unusual place where they've never
heard of disagreement and so can't handle it?

Disagreement doesn't bother me if it is rational and I can
handle it even if the opposition isn't rational. However
you need to be more than slightly disturbed (or stupid) to
think that dismissing a sensible and non inflammatory
statement with "balderdash!" is rational disagreement.

Oh, in place of the "evil dictator" slur we have an
elegantly insouciant utilisation of the "unsound mind" slur.

--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Mark South" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Original proposition (AndyP) "Carrying a stove at all is
rather contrary to the principles of lightweight
hiking."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Original response (Mark South) "Could I just be the
first one to say "balderdash!"?"

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a UK ng.

Quoted message said:

Thank you for explaining that little point. The fact that
the newsgroup name starts with "uk." probably isn't enough
of a clue for most people.

You seemed in danger of ignoring it so I am glad you found
the advice useful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless the context demands otherwise the arena is
the UK.

Quoted message said:

Everybody here will take note that they need your explicit
permission in writing, in advance, to discuss issues that
affect regions other than the UK.

You really are deluded.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I pointed out in my opening remarks stoves aren't
necessary even on multi day trips.

Quoted message said:

That depends on the trip. You can't deduce the necessity
or otherwise of a stove without knowing about the trip.

Name me a trip in the uk where a stove is a necessity then
and not just a necessity for you or your mythical mate who
can't go anywhere without a hot drink on tap. On second
thoughts don't bother. This has gone on far too long anyway.
Just accept that there are readers on this ng who can
survive without the necessity of hot food and drink and
there are only very limited areas in the where water can't
be found due to frost even in the depths of winter.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How many more posts will it take before you compare me
to (insert evil dictator of choice)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Quoted message said:

Gosh, what a clever and novel riposte. You really have me
slumped on the ropes here.

Merely taking a leaf out of your book by posing a question
that doesn't have the option of a reasonable answer, just
like yours immediately above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you come from some unusual place where they've
never heard of disagreement and so can't handle it?

Disagreement doesn't bother me if it is rational and I
can handle it even if the opposition isn't rational.
However you need to be more than slightly disturbed (or
stupid) to think that dismissing a sensible and non
inflammatory statement with "balderdash!" is rational
disagreement.

Quoted message said:

Oh, in place of the "evil dictator" slur we have an
elegantly insouciant utilisation of the "unsound
mind" slur.

Bit too near the Knuckle was I?

You have too fine a turn of phrase not to know the real
meaning of balderdash but just in case anyone still
following this conversation is at a loss I will quote the
dictionary definition - "stupid or illogical talk, senseless
rubbish". If you consider that either polite or rational
then the cap really does fit.

You also confuse fantasy with reality far too easily.

Now I have had my say, on some points several times over, as
have you, so why don't you cease before the gloves come off.

--
Roger so far this year New summits 11 (Marilyns 1, Sweats
1, Outlying Fells 9) Repeats 6 (Wainwrights 6) Knackered
knee - twice

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Now I have had my say, on some points several times over,
as have you, so why don't you cease before the gloves
come off.

Now you're on to physical threats. Amazing.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"Andy Howell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 23/3/04 8:53 am, in article c3otli$2eic$1@uns-
a.ucl.ac.uk, "Ken"

Quoted message said:

Having been considerably disappointed with about gas
burners, I'd be interested in other people's experiences
of multifuel/petrol/kerosene burners; IMHO the biggest
advantage they impart is for 3+ day trips,

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the relative inefficiency and unavailability of alcohol
for fuel can be

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

logistical problem; but I suspect that they too require
considerable attention, and degrade substantially in
the wind.

I went over to using an MSR Dragonfly after being caught
out several times in France, not being able to get a
canister in little villages in the mountains - everyone
stocks Camping Gaz but there are days when they are
awaiting delivery - just my luck. With the Dragonfly I can
use diesel if

I

Quoted message said:

need to and you can get that anywhere.

The main disadvantage of multi fuel stoves is weight but
they're not

really

Quoted message said:

that heavy. Of course the fuel adds to the weight but then
you'd be carrying fuel anyway. Some observations:

The wind shield supplied with MSR multi fuel stoves are
pretty effective

and

Quoted message said:

you shouldn't have to worry about wind too much.

Priming these stoves is far easier than people think.

Cleaning the stoves is pretty easy, you just shake out the
fuel line and soot comes out, again pretty easy.

These stoves are very stable because they are near
the ground.

I have found them to be more reliable than gas
particularly at altitude

(not

Quoted message said:

talking great heights here).

Finally, the multi fuel stoves are expensive to buy in the
first place.

But

Quoted message said:

fuel capacity, usage and economy can be very impressive.
And they are far more versatile to cook with. I consider
mine to have been a very good investment.

I'll second this. Another advantage of multifuel stoves is
that you can see how much fuel you have left and if you need
to top-up, unlike gas canisters that just run out
unexpectedly when cooking dinner.... I carry an MSR
International when hiking over a few days and have a little
Gaz stove for base camps and the like. MSRs are a bit more
fiddly but Gaz ones are slightly more unstable and prone to
wind problems, IMHO.

Nick

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The original question did not introduce the constraint
of talking about

day

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

walks in the UK.

This is a UK ng.

Thank you for explaining that little point. The fact that
the newsgroup name starts with "uk." probably isn't enough
of a clue for most people.

Certainly doesn't seem to be for Merkins! :-(