The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake under
a mountain range. He carried a number of tools and made everything he
needed, including the entire cabin right from standing trees to a snug home.
He felled and trimmed the logs with an ax, cut them them to length with a
hand saw, fitted them with a draw knife. He made the door from planks he
ripped by hand, and made the hinges from wood with wooden pins.
The film was in rough shape since he started a number of years ago and the
stock has deteriorated since then, but still had a sense of the immensity
and brutality of the wilderness. It appeared that he shot the film himself,
using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the shots
his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
camera moves.
The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple words
and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe of
the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods, I'm
calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
Bob
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The traits under discussion "self-reliance, self-sufficiency" and
> "community"/"society" are not mutually exclusive... the
argument/implication
> that self-reliant, self-sufficient folks are necessarily anti-social, or
> "can't live in society", is bogus.
True, but the opposite is somewhat true. If you choose to be a loner and
shun the rest of society, you had better be self reliant to survive.
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple words
> and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe of
> the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods,
I'm
> calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The current
gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is that makes
them so.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
I think this link gets you some more info...
http://www.alaskanha.org/_details.cfm?ProdID=969
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake
under
> a mountain range. He carried a number of tools and made everything he
> needed, including the entire cabin right from standing trees to a snug
home.
> He felled and trimmed the logs with an ax, cut them them to length with a
> hand saw, fitted them with a draw knife. He made the door from planks he
> ripped by hand, and made the hinges from wood with wooden pins.
>
> The film was in rough shape since he started a number of years ago and the
> stock has deteriorated since then, but still had a sense of the immensity
> and brutality of the wilderness. It appeared that he shot the film
himself,
> using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the
shots
> his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
> camera moves.
>
> The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple words
> and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe of
> the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods,
I'm
> calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
>
> Bob
>
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Regardless, chances are you and I, as modern Americans, are both to be
> considered 'coddled' when judged against the history of mankind providing
> himself with food and shelter on a daily basis ... that's probably why we
> ooh and ahh when we come across it..
>
Coddled??? Coddled you say??? Hell, I've got both indoor plumbing *and*
store bought toilet paper (even extra rolls on hand in the closet). I'm
more than coddled, I'm living in the lap of luxury.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
The survival instructors told us of a sure-fire way to be safe in the
wilderness. Carry a deck of cards.
If you're lost and in need of saving, deal a hand of solitaire. Shouldn't
take more than a few minutes before someone appears to remind you you could
have played the red eight on the black nine....
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake
under
> a mountain range.
, and if I ever get lost in the woods, I'm
> calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake
under
http://www.dickproenneke.com/DickProenneke.html
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> > "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
> >> current gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it
is
> that makes
> > > them so.
>
> > These days??? Hell, I'm in my 50's Swingman and I don't know anyone
from
> my
> > generation or even from my parent's generation that did such a thing.
>
> That's really unfortunate .... but reinforces the gene pool thing quite
> nicely. :)
Is that to say that you do know of people like Proenneke? I'm impressed if
you do.
>
> > I
> > don't think that kind of self-reliance/self sufficiency was ever
anything
> > but rare.
>
> Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
> settling of the American West), are city born and bred, raised on TV, and
> not well traveled to the remoter parts of the world ... even in "these
> days".
>
Ummmmm... I certainly did get my full share of American history, did not
grow up or live in the city, was far from raised on TV and am very well
traveled, although not necessarily to remote parts of the world. My wife
might argue that where we live should be considered one of the remote parts
of the world, and we do most things for ourselves, but I think I'd still be
impressed to know anyone like this fellow. That's an extreme amount of self
reliance by any standard.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
There is a picture of the partially completed cabin here:
http://www.dickproenneke.com/DickProenneke.html
I seem to recall he said he had the walls up in 11 days! I also
thought it was interesting that he left the wooden handles of his
tools behind to save weight and made new ones in the field.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake under
> a mountain range. He carried a number of tools and made everything he
> needed, including the entire cabin right from standing trees to a snug home.
> He felled and trimmed the logs with an ax, cut them them to length with a
> hand saw, fitted them with a draw knife. He made the door from planks he
> ripped by hand, and made the hinges from wood with wooden pins.
>
> The film was in rough shape since he started a number of years ago and the
> stock has deteriorated since then, but still had a sense of the immensity
> and brutality of the wilderness. It appeared that he shot the film himself,
> using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the shots
> his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
> camera moves.
>
> The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple words
> and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe of
> the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods, I'm
> calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
>
> Bob
Not to minimize the incredible story, but I have watched this film
repeatedly and there are at least two scenes shot by a camera person;
one is which the camera pans following him walking, the other in which
the camera is being carried hand-held by someone walking a short
distance away.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake under
> a mountain range...It appeared that he shot the film himself,
> using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the shots
> his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
> camera moves.
>
"JMWEBER987" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I watched this with amazement. He lived alone there I believe the story
said
> for 35 years. I was telling some friends about it and how I believed they
> didn't make men like that anymore. Just watching a single person use a
large
> ripping saw to make lumber from logs made my arms ache.
> Mike in Arkansas
I had to chuckle looking at the web page. He wanted to live in a place
untouched by man. And then he starts chopping down trees!
He's got a lot of courage to do what he did. I'd wus out the first day.
Nah, I'd wus out on the trip into the wilderness.
Ed
I noticed that and assumed that the plane pilot was at the controls for a
couple of very brief sequences. The protagonist was alone for 99 percent or
so of the shots and in most the top of his head was cut off by the camera,
which a second human operator would not do. I'm thinking the camera was on a
tripod and the shots framed incorrectly..
Bob
"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not to minimize the incredible story, but I have watched this film
> repeatedly and there are at least two scenes shot by a camera person;
> one is which the camera pans following him walking, the other in which
> the camera is being carried hand-held by someone walking a short
> distance away.
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a
>> guy
>> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake
>> under
>> a mountain range...It appeared that he shot the film himself,
>> using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the
>> shots
>> his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
>> camera moves.
>>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:03:41 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > >> > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
> > >>> current gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever
it
> is
> > >that makes
>
> > >Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
> > >settling
> >
> >
> > settling?
>
> set·tled; set·tling : to establish a residence or colony.
>
> > occupation.
> > lest we forget that this continent was in fact occupied when we got
> > here.
>
> Yep ... by a race whose gene pool was brimming with self-sufficiency and
> self-reliance. But no matter the extent of subject traits inherent in the
> original "occupiers', they were inarguably no match for the European
> "settlers".
They were certainly no match for the settlers' germs. Well over 90% of the
natives who died did so from disease carried by the Europeans.
On 15-Aug-2004, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's a real stretch ... heretofore no one has remotely implied that those
> who are self-reliant and self-sufficient can't "live in society".
Other than the only example you gave.
> AAMOF,
> look beyond 'dates and names' in human history and you'll understand that
> these traits are what "society" is built upon.
Hardly likely, unless you assume that history is made only of a small
minority who do that. It's trendy (and very American) to claim that
the bold, self-reliant individualist is the reason for greatness. But
that has nothing to do with historical fact, where the majority are
folks who get up each day and do the same thing they always did and
create a society based on mutual reliance and support (aka, community).
Community barn raisin' beats slugging it out alone if you really want
a decent life.
Mike
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
> On 13-Aug-2004, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
current
> > gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is that
makes
> > them so.
>
> The gene pool is in need of men that can't live in society?
That's a real stretch ... heretofore no one has remotely implied that those
who are self-reliant and self-sufficient can't "live in society". AAMOF,
look beyond 'dates and names' in human history and you'll understand that
these traits are what "society" is built upon.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> They were certainly no match for the settlers' germs. Well over 90% of the
> natives who died did so from disease carried by the Europeans.
... and the smallpox infected blankets distributed to Native Americans by
the British Army in the mid 1700's ... biological warfare as modern as any
today. Judging from the current jihad's, It may well come back to haunt us.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
On 13-Aug-2004, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The current
> gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is that makes
> them so.
The gene pool is in need of men that can't live in society?
Mike
I think this is the guy you are referencing:
http://www.minifarmhomestead.com/outdoors/richardproenneke.htm
An incredible story.
Rick
Mike wrote:
> Not to minimize the incredible story, but I have watched this film
> repeatedly and there are at least two scenes shot by a camera person;
> one is which the camera pans following him walking, the other in which
> the camera is being carried hand-held by someone walking a short
> distance away.
>
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
>>who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake under
>>a mountain range...It appeared that he shot the film himself,
>>using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the shots
>>his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
>>camera moves.
>>
Another thing you can do if you're alone and need help...providing there's a
road nearby fell a tree so it crosses the road. A car will be along soon
wanting through NOW. If you think you're alone...just take a leak out in the
open.
Joe
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The survival instructors told us of a sure-fire way to be safe in the
> wilderness. Carry a deck of cards.
>
> If you're lost and in need of saving, deal a hand of solitaire. Shouldn't
> take more than a few minutes before someone appears to remind you you
could
> have played the red eight on the black nine....
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a
guy
> > who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake
> under
> > a mountain range.
>
> , and if I ever get lost in the woods, I'm
> > calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
>
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Regardless, chances are you and I, as modern Americans, are both to be
> considered 'coddled' when judged against the history of mankind providing
> himself with food and shelter on a daily basis ... that's probably why we
> ooh and ahh when we come across it..
Yesterday my wife and I took a walk in the woods. We passed a spot called
Brady's Rocks where 100+ years ago an Irish stonecutter named (duh) Brady
set up his household. He worked an outcropping of dolomite for years to
provide a living for himself and his wife and 6 children. The eight of them
lived in a 12x12 foot cabin.
I doubt that given a choice he would have chosen a 12-foot square home, but
he had no choice. He did it because he had to, and so his family could
survive in the harsh climate of southern Wisconsin.He wanted better things
for his family in the future. I admire his self-sufficiency of course, but I
doubt very much that his children would have chosen to emulate his
sacrifice. Not because they were coddled, but simply because they wanted a
more materially secure life. They could have it in part because his work
helped provide it, but that was his goal in the first place.
Point is that the desire for better living conditions is normal and natural.
What Proenneke did was the reverse, seeking lesser living standards. He
wasn't weird but he certainly ran agrainst the grain (Obww) of human life.
That makes him neither less nor more virtuous than those who accept better
conditions and choose to prove themselves in a different way.
I said that I'd like to have him around if I were lost in the woods. But I'm
not, and I'm content with that.
Bob
Bob Schmall writes:
>Point is that the desire for better living conditions is normal and natural.
>What Proenneke did was the reverse, seeking lesser living standards. He
>wasn't weird but he certainly ran agrainst the grain (Obww) of human life.
>That makes him neither less nor more virtuous than those who accept better
>conditions and choose to prove themselves in a different way.
>
>I said that I'd like to have him around if I were lost in the woods. But I'm
>not, and I'm content with that.
Yes. The concept of 35 years alone is a bit bothersome particularly. You're
away from what passes for civilization, which means medical care, among other
things. Thus you'd best hope that genetics favors the bold, because things like
appendicitis can lay you low and kill you faster than any animal or falling
rock.
What he did is admirable, if not virtuous, but given a lot of thought, it isn't
anything I'd chose for myself under any conditions I can think of. I've lived
in the country and spent most of 20 years with nothing but wood heat, some of
that without electricity (awful, really), and given any choice at all will not
do either again.
I was going to put an emergency wood stove on an unused chimney here, but my
wife vetoed that. Quite simply, she prefers turn-up-the-thermostat comfort. If
we lose power, as we have, for more than a day or two, we just tough it out.
Woodstoves are messy, and the wood itself is not a neat storage item. She had
to put up with that as a child, along with coal heat when it got really cold,
but wants no more of it.
Not a fight I could win. And, these days, my insurance company would probably
have me paying $1500 or more for a suitable, UL tested, stove, instead of one I
could weld up myself in a day or so out of scrap plate and lined with
firebrick. That tends to take the charm out of the idea, and gives me some
indication of why Mr. Proenneke moved into the woods.
I do wonder, though, how he made the money to pay for those things he couldn't
make.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I was going to put an emergency wood stove on an unused chimney here, but
my
> wife vetoed that. Quite simply, she prefers turn-up-the-thermostat
comfort. If
> we lose power, as we have, for more than a day or two, we just tough it
out.
> Woodstoves are messy, and the wood itself is not a neat storage item. She
had
> to put up with that as a child, along with coal heat when it got really
cold,
> but wants no more of it.
>
One word Charlie... Generator.
I have a wood stove in the living room still, that for 15 years was our
primary source of heat. We live in Central NY and the winters here are long
and cold. Every fall was a ritual of putting up firewood. Finally
installed a furnace and haven't looked back. We still keep a couple of face
cords of wood outside for "emergencies" when the power goes off - and it
does regularly here, yet we almost never touch off the wood stove when it's
so much more convenient to touch off the generator.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow responds:
>> Woodstoves are messy, and the wood itself is not a neat storage item. She
>had
>> to put up with that as a child, along with coal heat when it got really
>cold,
>> but wants no more of it.
>>
>
>One word Charlie... Generator.
>
>I have a wood stove in the living room still, that for 15 years was our
>primary source of heat. We live in Central NY and the winters here are long
>and cold. Every fall was a ritual of putting up firewood. Finally
>installed a furnace and haven't looked back. We still keep a couple of face
>cords of wood outside for "emergencies" when the power goes off - and it
>does regularly here, yet we almost never touch off the wood stove when it's
>so much more convenient to touch off the generator.
>--
I've thought about it, but...I once lived in Albany and if it were that cold
here, I'd have a generator and a second back-up furnace! As it is, we've
survived a full week of winter with no heat other than what came from a few
candles. The house never got below about 55.
It seldom drops to 0 here (every fifth winter or so), and when it does, there's
usually no real weather problem. It's the thaw days in February and March,
quickly followed by ice storms, that ambush you. The area averages much less
snow in a typical winter than Albany used to in one storm. Biggest storm I've
seen here was a few years ago, maybe 16", and, because it was windy, it was
called the blizzard of '99 or whatever year it was. Warn't no damned blizzard,
though, by an stretch.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow responds:
>
>>> Woodstoves are messy, and the wood itself is not a neat storage item. She
>>had
>>> to put up with that as a child, along with coal heat when it got really
>>cold,
>>> but wants no more of it.
>>>
>>
>>One word Charlie... Generator.
>>
>>I have a wood stove in the living room still, that for 15 years was our
>>primary source of heat. We live in Central NY and the winters here are long
>>and cold. Every fall was a ritual of putting up firewood. Finally
>>installed a furnace and haven't looked back. We still keep a couple of face
>>cords of wood outside for "emergencies" when the power goes off - and it
>>does regularly here, yet we almost never touch off the wood stove when it's
>>so much more convenient to touch off the generator.
>>--
>
>I've thought about it, but...I once lived in Albany and if it were that cold
>here, I'd have a generator and a second back-up furnace! As it is, we've
>survived a full week of winter with no heat other than what came from a few
>candles. The house never got below about 55.
Been there, done that. My folks did a -major- remodel of the house, one that
involved somewhat more than doubling the square-footage. Couldn't see any
reason to rip out/replace a perfectly good furnace, so it was dedicated to
the 'old' half of the house and a 2nd unit put in to handle the 'new' half.
Secondary advantage of having effectively 'zone control' of the environment.
20+ years later, in the middle of a *really* cold spell (like highs of -15f,
lows below -30f), it penetrated consciousness that the 'living-room wing'
furnace was running practically constantly, and had been for some days.
Investigation showed that the bedroom-wing furnace was stone-cold dead.
When my mother came up for air at work (circa 4:00 PM) the next day, she
calls the HVAC company. "One of my furnaces just died -- can you schedule
somebody out to quote on a replacement?", she says. Poor receptionist
at the heating company apparently doesn't hear the "one of.." part, and
is apologizing profusely how they _can't_ get anybody out there that day,
due to the lateness of the hour, that all the installers had already left
for the day, but that they would have somebody out to the house "FIRST THING
in the morning!" to look over the situation. To which my mother replies,
"Tomorrow is not convenient... can we schedule something for next week?"
Stunned silence from the other end of the phone, followed by *utter*
bewilderment and non-comprehension. Takes several minutes to get sorted
out the fact that the house is _not_ without heat; that conditions are
'livable'; that this is =not= an 'emergency'. :)
Anyway, having dual heat plants provided the "luxury" of the time to get
competitive bids from several sources, _and_ get a _2nd_ round of quotes,
when it was noticed that everybody was quoting furnaces that were about
_double_ the size of the plant being replaced. The estimators looked
at the size of the house, apparently, and quoted on that basis -- not
noticing the -other- furnace at the other side of the basement, and
didn't read the plate on the dead 40-year old furnace.
AMAZING how much the prices came down, 2nd time around. Making it clear
that this was -not- a 'rush' job probably also helped.
A '_hot_ spare' furnace is a *GOOD* thing to have. You never know when you
might find use for it! <grin>
Alex gloats:
>...So GLAD I live in southern California! little dinky gas heater
>on our hall wall (compared to a furnace)...he he! Sometimes it
>hits just below 32º. Even then some lit candles and coverings
>will do the trick
Of course, on smog days (9 out of 10?), a deep breath is the equivalent of
smoking two packs of cigarets.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
On 15 Aug 2004 14:08:06 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>Alex gloats:
>
>>...So GLAD I live in southern California! little dinky gas heater
>>on our hall wall (compared to a furnace)...he he! Sometimes it
>>hits just below 32º. Even then some lit candles and coverings
>>will do the trick
>
>Of course, on smog days (9 out of 10?), a deep breath is the equivalent of
>smoking two packs of cigarets.
HelL.A. has about a third of the smog it did 20 years ago.
I'm impressed at the cleaner (but still brown) air. It's
probably down to half a pack now. ;)
We were onset by L.A. or San Diego smog about 10 days per
year in Vista, not bad but not something I liked. I don't
miss much from there. (Especially not with twice the shop
space, now heated and air-conditioned.)
Soon there'll be a San Francisco/San Diego Metropolitan
area--1 city covering 600+ miles of coast extending inland
about 90 miles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The more we gripe, * http://www.diversify.com/stees.html
the longer God makes us live. * Graphic Design - Humorous T-shirts
Alex responds:
>I hate to say it but CA is a LOT bigger than that! It is the 5th largest
>economy on Earth big brother! That means "area".
Which earthquake fault line do you live on?
About half of CA is too steep, or too high, to live on, too.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
AArDvarK wrote:
>
>> Of course, on smog days (9 out of 10?), a deep breath is the equivalent
>> of smoking two packs of cigarets.
>
>
> I hate to say it but CA is a LOT bigger than that! It is the 5th largest
> economy on Earth big brother! That means "area".
Nope, it means "business". And what does area have to do with smog?
> Alex
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> Nope, it means "business". And what does area have to do with smog?
It has to with where the smog is (on my part)... like several dots of it
here and there, at the big cities. CA is GIANT. A very small EQ fault
where I live, less than 5 miles from downtown's topographical center.
Here on the coast I am at the 101 freeway so there is smog, but less
because it is the coast, it is still incomparable to the L. A. basin in
smog content. Worlds most perfect weather with very-very low
humidity. Some parts of Italy may match most of that, maybe the
south of France too but they have humidity.
Lotta Hollywood stars, producers, directors, writers, and rock'n'roll
stars live here too. On the street you could talk with Dennis Franz,
Dennis Miller, Johnathan Winters.... If anyone wanted to live here it
would be easy to study where the worst faults are at, but real estate
is WAY up high!
This is intended as "friendly" conversation... not arrogant challenges
and cutdowns.
Alex
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:03:41 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
> >> > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
> >>> current gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it
is
> >that makes
> >Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
> >settling
>
>
> settling?
set·tled; set·tling : to establish a residence or colony.
> occupation.
> lest we forget that this continent was in fact occupied when we got
> here.
Yep ... by a race whose gene pool was brimming with self-sufficiency and
self-reliance. But no matter the extent of subject traits inherent in the
original "occupiers', they were inarguably no match for the European
"settlers".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>
> > The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple
words
> > and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe
of
> > the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods,
> I'm
> > calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
>
> That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
current
> gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is that makes
> them so.
>
These days??? Hell, I'm in my 50's Swingman and I don't know anyone from my
generation or even from my parent's generation that did such a thing. I
don't think that kind of self-reliance/self sufficiency was ever anything
but rare.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote in message:
> > Ah hell, you either want to argue to justify a jump to conclusions, or
you
> > really can't see that it takes self-sufficiency and self-reliance to
build
>> a barn in the first place, even collectively ... either way we aren't
going
>> to agree, so let's call it a draw and drop it.
>
> No, keep going. It's a classic topic for a good discussion (which you're
> having): the primacy of individual genius or community.
The traits under discussion "self-reliance, self-sufficiency" and
"community"/"society" are not mutually exclusive... the argument/implication
that self-reliant, self-sufficient folks are necessarily anti-social, or
"can't live in society", is bogus.
Communities are not unknown to possess the same traits as the individuals
who populate them. Pretty hard to argue that Colonial Williamsburg, to name
but one poor but current example, is not populated with self-reliant,
self-sufficient folks who work together for the benefit of the community,
albeit a commercial endeavor.
An interesting article about a Scottish fishing village which has been
robbed of its self-reliance by government fiat.
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_herald_fishing.htm
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:03:41 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
>> > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
>>> current gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is
>that makes
>> > them so.
>
>> These days??? Hell, I'm in my 50's Swingman and I don't know anyone from
>my
>> generation or even from my parent's generation that did such a thing.
>
>That's really unfortunate .... but reinforces the gene pool thing quite
>nicely. :)
>
>> I
>> don't think that kind of self-reliance/self sufficiency was ever anything
>> but rare.
>
>Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
>settling
settling?
occupation.
lest we forget that this continent was in fact occupied when we got
here.
of the American West), are city born and bred, raised on TV, and
>not well traveled to the remoter parts of the world ... even in "these
>days".
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I had to chuckle looking at the web page. He wanted to live in a place
> untouched by man. And then he starts chopping down trees!
>
I thought the very same thing right off the bat.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Michael Daly wrote:
> On 15-Aug-2004, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's a real stretch ... heretofore no one has remotely implied that
>> those who are self-reliant and self-sufficient can't "live in society".
>
> Other than the only example you gave.
>
>> AAMOF,
>> look beyond 'dates and names' in human history and you'll understand that
>> these traits are what "society" is built upon.
>
> Hardly likely, unless you assume that history is made only of a small
> minority who do that. It's trendy (and very American) to claim that
> the bold, self-reliant individualist is the reason for greatness. But
> that has nothing to do with historical fact, where the majority are
> folks who get up each day and do the same thing they always did and
> create a society based on mutual reliance and support (aka, community).
> Community barn raisin' beats slugging it out alone if you really want
> a decent life.
If it were not for the guy who was willing to ignore the inertia of the
community and go try something new though, we'd still be cat food.
Communit barn raisin' only works if somebody has figured out how to build a
barn.
> Mike
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > The traits under discussion "self-reliance, self-sufficiency" and
> > "community"/"society" are not mutually exclusive... the
> argument/implication
> > that self-reliant, self-sufficient folks are necessarily anti-social, or
> > "can't live in society", is bogus.
>
> True, but the opposite is somewhat true. If you choose to be a loner and
> shun the rest of society, you had better be self reliant to survive.
True, but that way you don't contribute to the gene pool ... which goes
right back to my original statment.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Schmall" wrote in message
>
> > They were certainly no match for the settlers' germs. Well over 90% of
the
> > natives who died did so from disease carried by the Europeans.
>
> ... and the smallpox infected blankets distributed to Native Americans by
> the British Army in the mid 1700's ...
One documented incident, and one more in the Dakotas in the 1880s, IIRC.
>biological warfare as modern as any today. Judging from >the current
jihad's, It may well come back to haunt us.
Are we far enough off topic yet? 8-)
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "JMWEBER987" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I watched this with amazement. He lived alone there I believe the story
> said
> > for 35 years. I was telling some friends about it and how I believed
they
> > didn't make men like that anymore. Just watching a single person use a
> large
> > ripping saw to make lumber from logs made my arms ache.
> > Mike in Arkansas
>
> I had to chuckle looking at the web page. He wanted to live in a place
> untouched by man. And then he starts chopping down trees!
"Untouched by man" means "other than himself."
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
> Point is that the desire for better living conditions is normal and
natural.
> What Proenneke did was the reverse, seeking lesser living standards. He
> wasn't weird but he certainly ran agrainst the grain (Obww) of human life.
> That makes him neither less nor more virtuous than those who accept better
> conditions and choose to prove themselves in a different way.
Often "better living condition", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
A good bet that Proenneke subscribed to that. I've seen backwoods landowners
get downright rich on oil and gas royalties and still live, by choice, in
the manner to which they had been accustomed ... downright squalor according
to yours and my standards.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Michael Daly" wrote in message ...
> > On 15-Aug-2004, "Swingman" wrote:
> >
> > > That's a real stretch ... heretofore no one has remotely implied that
> those
> > > who are self-reliant and self-sufficient can't "live in society".
> >
> > Other than the only example you gave.
>
> LOL! Now don't go blaming your leap to conclusions on me ... I gave no
> example.
>
> >
> > > AAMOF,
> > > look beyond 'dates and names' in human history and you'll understand
> that
> > > these traits are what "society" is built upon.
> >
> > Hardly likely, unless you assume that history is made only of a small
> > minority who do that. It's trendy (and very American) to claim that
> > the bold, self-reliant individualist is the reason for greatness. But
> > that has nothing to do with historical fact, where the majority are
> > folks who get up each day and do the same thing they always did and
> > create a society based on mutual reliance and support (aka, community).
> > Community barn raisin' beats slugging it out alone if you really want
> > a decent life.
>
> Ah hell, you either want to argue to justify a jump to conclusions, or you
> really can't see that it takes self-sufficiency and self-reliance to build
a
> barn in the first place, even collectively ... either way we aren't going
to
> agree, so let's call it a draw and drop it.
No, keep going. It's a classic topic for a good discussion (which you're
having): the primacy of individual genius or community. Here's one idea:
Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War series said something like, "We
Americans like to think of ourselves as uncompromising, but our true genius
lies in compromise, our whole country is founded on it."
Among many, many examples of the discussion is the agrument between W.E.B.
DuBois and Booker T. Washington regarding the direction of the black
community in the decades after the Civil War. DuBois believed in the
"Talented Tenth," the leaders educated at the best schools who would inspire
the community with their wisdom. Washington said, in effect, "Phooey. Let's
raise ourselves up by our bootstraps and educate all of us in the manual
arts, so we can build our own infrastructure."
Then again, Anonymous said,
"The fool tries to adapt the world to himself. The wise man adapts himself
to the world. All progress is due to the fools."
Bob
Alone in the Wilderness: a documentry of Richard Proenneke
Bob Schmall wrote:
> The local PBS station showed "Alone in the Wilderness," the story of a guy
> who went to the Arctic and built a log cabin (Obww) on a stunning lake under
> a mountain range. He carried a number of tools and made everything he
> needed, including the entire cabin right from standing trees to a snug home.
> He felled and trimmed the logs with an ax, cut them them to length with a
> hand saw, fitted them with a draw knife. He made the door from planks he
> ripped by hand, and made the hinges from wood with wooden pins.
>
> The film was in rough shape since he started a number of years ago and the
> stock has deteriorated since then, but still had a sense of the immensity
> and brutality of the wilderness. It appeared that he shot the film himself,
> using a tripod to shoot himself working, walking, etc. In many of the shots
> his head is partially cut off and there are no shots of him in which the
> camera moves.
>
> The film is narrated from his diary and it's amazing how such simple words
> and camera work can capture the majesty of the surroundings. I'm in awe of
> the man, whose name I never caught, and if I ever get lost in the woods, I'm
> calling him. He's over 80 now, but I'm pretty sure he could save me.
>
> Bob
>
>
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > That kind of self-reliance/self-sufficiency is rare these days. The
>> current gene pool is sorely in need of a healthy dose of whatever it is
that makes
> > them so.
> These days??? Hell, I'm in my 50's Swingman and I don't know anyone from
my
> generation or even from my parent's generation that did such a thing.
That's really unfortunate .... but reinforces the gene pool thing quite
nicely. :)
> I
> don't think that kind of self-reliance/self sufficiency was ever anything
> but rare.
Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
settling of the American West), are city born and bred, raised on TV, and
not well traveled to the remoter parts of the world ... even in "these
days".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ...
> On 15-Aug-2004, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > That's a real stretch ... heretofore no one has remotely implied that
those
> > who are self-reliant and self-sufficient can't "live in society".
>
> Other than the only example you gave.
LOL! Now don't go blaming your leap to conclusions on me ... I gave no
example.
>
> > AAMOF,
> > look beyond 'dates and names' in human history and you'll understand
that
> > these traits are what "society" is built upon.
>
> Hardly likely, unless you assume that history is made only of a small
> minority who do that. It's trendy (and very American) to claim that
> the bold, self-reliant individualist is the reason for greatness. But
> that has nothing to do with historical fact, where the majority are
> folks who get up each day and do the same thing they always did and
> create a society based on mutual reliance and support (aka, community).
> Community barn raisin' beats slugging it out alone if you really want
> a decent life.
Ah hell, you either want to argue to justify a jump to conclusions, or you
really can't see that it takes self-sufficiency and self-reliance to build a
barn in the first place, even collectively ... either way we aren't going to
agree, so let's call it a draw and drop it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> > That's really unfortunate .... but reinforces the gene pool thing quite
> > nicely. :)
>
> Is that to say that you do know of people like Proenneke? I'm impressed
if
> you do.
Speaking precisely of the self-reliance and self-sufficiency required to
provide yourself with food and shelter, it wasn't all that long ago that I
witnessed examples in the swamps of Southern Louisiana where I was raised;
saw many more examples in travels down through the years, particularly in
the Northern Territory of Australia in the early 60's; and served with a
number of the breed in SE Asia where those solo long range reconnaisance
missions were performed by individuals possessing the epitome of
self-reliance and self-sufficiency even more extreme than providing shelter
and food for yourself.
... and 35 years later I am _still_ in awe of the latter.
So you could say I've always been an admirer of the qualities and therefore
fairly quick to recognize same. AAMOF, might've even posted that very
sentiment a time or two right here in the past couple of years. :)
> > > I
> > > don't think that kind of self-reliance/self sufficiency was ever
> anything
> > > but rare.
> >
> > Particularly for those who didn't get much history in school (like the
> > settling of the American West), are city born and bred, raised on TV,
and
> > not well traveled to the remoter parts of the world ... even in "these
> > days".
> Ummmmm... I certainly did get my full share of American history, did not
> grow up or live in the city, was far from raised on TV and am very well
> traveled, although not necessarily to remote parts of the world. My wife
> might argue that where we live should be considered one of the remote
parts
> of the world, and we do most things for ourselves, but I think I'd still
be
> impressed to know anyone like this fellow. That's an extreme amount of
self
> reliance by any standard.
Regardless, chances are you and I, as modern Americans, are both to be
considered 'coddled' when judged against the history of mankind providing
himself with food and shelter on a daily basis ... that's probably why we
ooh and ahh when we come across it..
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04