1a2bcio8

Yet the winner of a novice category, Jonathan Tollerud, had a very trialsy style. I also rode the nationals on my 24" at Radfest which was on a bike fairly similar to Marks. Albeit with brakes. The fundamental point here is, what do you want to achieve by saying that style that some of us ride isn't to be included as part of the definition of trials? If you can give me a good reason I will happily stop saying that I am a part of a trials community. I struggle to imagine what a good achievement of that would be though...

Do you not recognise that trials means what we want it to? Essentially you are choosing to define in that way - it's not necessary that you do so - whilst some of us want to include a more bmx orientated style within the definition because we like being a part of this community. I still backhop and do an array of other 'trialsy' moves when I also do 360s, etc. We use language for convenience of communication; for achieving certain things - that is all. There's no ultimate trials reality... but unfortunately that misconception is what underlies all these arguments. It's as though people are seeing 'trials' as some definite thing and not just a made up label. This is why I called the GETcreative competition 'freetrials' because it still communicates being a part of the same community but without limits as to what you add to your riding. Obviously never caught on though

It's a shame trials isn't seen in terms of a community of similar minded people rather than the attempt to divide it over who does which moves. It's also a shame this young chap's video thread has been ruined by pointlessness. I happily ride with TGS riders; they are a part of my community and that's where my thinking ends. Why take it further? When people point out the differences between peoples riding they only do so for bad reasons. I think that's fairly obvious and that's why people get annoyed. It's basically shit-stirring that doesn't really achieve anything beside that.

I've read books and articles over the years. I take it, to some extent, on good faith that when a scientific community is almost entirely in accord with a descriptive model of reality that is probably good reason to believe it. I've backed that up with reading but obviously I'm not as versed as a scientist. That does make it more of a gamble from my position of understanding but that's the way it goes sometimes. Life is a constant stream of gambles and when they relate to such important issues it matters more than we take a stand rather than sitting on a fence and potentially allow something very bad to happen. The fact of a definite increase of carbon within the atmosphere from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in pre-industrial times to 370 ppmv now - an increase of 30% - is too coincidental to be that. We know that the sun emits short-wave radiation which the earth absorbs and emits as long-wave radiation which various gases within the atmosphere absorb such as carbon, methane, etc. but carbon, at present, is the most problematic in terms of its heating properties against its increasing volume. What makes matters worse is various positive feedbacks such as trapped methane being freed from melting ice - a result of global warming - into the atmosphere. Methane has significantly greater heating properties than carbon and therefore will heat the atmosphere more which will melt even more ice and release even more methane; the process will run away from us if it gets that far as it cycles ever more rapidly. All evidence and explanation presently supports this theory. Originally there was some doubt but any attempt to refute this model has failed. All evidence leans towards anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. You probably trust science in all other walks of life so I find it difficult to understand why you might suddenly, in the arena, question it as you do? It's always possible that we can't do anything but that's a big maybe. Isn't it worth trying when the potential outcome is probably a massive difference in ours and our children's quality of life? We could have been driving around electric cars by now but big oil made sure that possibility was shelved despite how successful trials of it were. Efforts to establish international policy on carbon emissions usually fail because countries like America pull out. They do this because government there - like the UK - represents business interests. We can further invest in and employ technologies that either don't emit or offset carbon emissions. These are all things that do make a difference and are not unrealistic in the slightest. They just aren't happening because elite profit is dominating policy. When we say 'things will never change' then we create a self-fulfilling prophecy because then they will never change because you will never act on that idea. Yet if everyone said 'things can change, let's make it happen' then it would. We dwarf big business and government. In a sense it's that easy. It just becomes complex because of the attitudes that people hold toward the world that convince them not to do anything and then they say nothing can change... This is why I'm trying to work on the level of awareness and understanding because it's the prime impediment to a world that isn't f**ked.

That's actually a pretty fair point - I think it makes sense - but we could always just vote in a more representative party. I think that would show them even more

The tone I've used is, I feel, proportional to problem we face. As I said before, we always speak in a way that relates to the issue at hand. I shout at you if you're about to crash your car or similar. I've used a tone that relates to how pressing I find things in relation to how apathetic people are about theirs and others fate. If someone is generally disinterested you might have to act with somewhat more urgency than normal. I think the tone is, ultimately, fairly immaterial though and skirts around the fundamental issue which is man-made climate change and its effects. We don't have to have all of the answers. If I came to you and said that there's a problem with the foundation of your house you wouldn't tell me to not tell you because I don't know exactly how to solve the problem. How is this different? Even if I come to you with more evidence about differing ways that the foundation was problematic still without an exact solution would you tell me to stop telling you anything? Calling it posturing is totally unfair when it's following from a sincere interest in yours and others well being. There's no intent to mislead, confuse or simply look awesome. Which isn't to say we won't get in wrong in some regards. Undoubtedly I make mistakes as does everyone. What's important is whether people have really tried to understand, decided properly on its merits whether it's right or wrong, or whether they just avoid that process at all costs and simply rationalise it away by stabbing at the surface or factors that surround it as I've repeatedly seen in this and other threads. As I've stated, the current problem, from my perspective and others, is people's lack of engagement and misunderstanding with what goes on beyond their immediate environment. Thus, offering arguments about the imperative of problems we face is an action to *hopefully* erode that. I believe people have a great potential capacity to care about the world and those beyond themselves or that are close to them. Even if they are only interested about themselves, these are issues that you need to know about. Global warming fits into a complex of political, economic, social, etc. issues that we all face. The world operates on that scale (globally) and thinking only in terms of your immediate environment no longer makes sense. To deny the power of organisation is deny history. The last great period of organisation in the west - the 1960s - was effective in forwarding various rights for minority groups, ending wars, etc. so there is great potential for organisation and it's very possible. I don't really see the difference in a cumulative effort toward organising against an oppressive elite and a cumulative effort toward anything else? If one is possible why isn't the other? A cumulative effort toward organisation is becoming informed and then, on that basis, pursuing an objective in large enough numbers to be successful. You can already join movements but there's little point in doing so until you understand what you're joining; the ins and outs of what you're fighting for. Again, people already do it and there have been significant movements in the last century and all other centuries. Are we in some special era where our behaviours with respect to social movements are stuck? The reason for not just focusing on what we do individually in the sense of turning lights off, not using cars, your example, etc. is that it's not enough - it is valid but not complete. Industry is the worst offender. It is powerful, backed by the the government that's supposed to represent us, it manipulates our understanding and will only change if we, the people, make it. The fossil fuel industry has repeatedly engaged in actions that wreck the planet. It is psychopathic. We also don't have time to take things too slowly. Granted we can't do them instantly but we can't take too long. Humanity has to step up and break out of the current mould. Basically, governments are well placed to develop and implement technology and policy that will affect man-made climate change. As it stands, those governments are uninterested in the warnings that have come from a mostly unified scientific community backed by a wealth of evidence. In fact, they are trying to further generate ignorance by removing the study of climate change from geography for children under 14 in schools. In so much as people are unaware of the context within which governments don't act (vested interests) and the power big business has over them they won't do anything about it. I'll keep emphasising this but understanding is the basis to ANY change. That lacks so it's the beginning of anything and everything. I mean, when I tell you that the government is removing that type of education doesn't it stir something within you? A sense of injustice or something similar? A concern? An interest if having things different? If it does then it serves a purpose. Repeatedly being inspired by injustices can have a cumulative effect to action. Just talking to others and inspiring them makes a difference. I want to emphasis that you shouldn't mistake the firmness with which I say things as judgement grounded in disdain for people. I happen to think pretty much everyone I know in this community is awesome. JD as an example, whom I know is totally uninterested in all this, despite being very critical of his type of attitude, none the less, I think is awesome. None of this is trying to assert myself as awesome bearer of knowledge or hating people less moral than I or any nonsense like that. I'm definitely frustrated at people's attitudes but I do actually sympathise because I share them in varying degrees. I'm working hard to extract myself from my own apathy and selfishness and I'll probably spend the whole of my life attempting to without ever really fully succeeding. We live in a world where we are constantly manipulated into a world view of selfishness. We grow up in front of a television and the internet which is constantly trying to centre our attention around buying this or that item or experience. No wonder we find it difficult to give attention elsewhere. Despite that, I won't stop being critical and not saying things about the qualities and tendencies of our society and the individuals within. Overall we are very apathetic and selfish - that can be a critical description without containing judgement. Sometimes I judge - undoubtedly - but then so do all of you unless someone wants to try and tell me they don't? The point is whether the primary motive is grounded in compassion and I think for most people trying to forward these views it is. So even if it seems like I'm being very critical of your views, Mark, there's nothing personal. We're just in a domain I really care about and will argue strongly for irrespective of who you are I'll say it one more time though. I am arguing to try and emphasis the dangers we are in. Environmentally, politically, economically, etc. Before we can address any of those things we have to recognise them as dangers, we have to understand what is dangerous about them, and that information has to generate concern and interest otherwise nothing else can come of it. In other words, at this stage when people aren't really interested or have much understanding - understand the intention here is critical not judgemental - that is what needs to change. It's the first port of call without which all others are meaningless. Therefore, reading is important to build up a more accurate picture of affairs.

The earth is continually cycling between warmer periods and significant and minor ice-ages which are predominantly caused by the earth's orbit of the sun. The periods of change, however, are relatively large; that is, relatively large, compared to the changes that have occurred since the industrial era which is one significant indication of man-made climate change. It is no longer in doubt that we have disrupted the natural change of climate. You're totally missing the point. The cost of global warming will affect you. This has already begun to happen around the world regarding changes to the climate. Flooding in the UK will increase dramatically. I don't have the predictions to hand, regarding the increased cost and therefore burden upon our countries economy but I have some numbers regarding the costs in America. The insurance costs for hurricanes was, in the 1980s, calculated to never supersede 1bn. However, Hurricane Andrew cost insurance companies 21bn and totalled 37bn in overall economic loss. Storm intensity has been steadily increasing over the years and will continue to do so due to global warming. Furthermore, the following generations won't just be worrying about it; they will be living it, like you, but to a much more significant extent. We can expect droughts, famine, etc. Technologies and policies are already in existence which could put a significant halt on global warming but they aren't used or adhered to. The cost of doing so increases massively each year we do nothing. Again, I wish I had the statistics to hand. We currently do nothing because most people are apathetic and no real pressure exists on governments to do much. The pressure and rewards from big business currently outweighs the efforts of an engaged and concerned minority. http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/economy.html If you don't want to read and only want to be told what to do then you're a part of the problem. There is a serious issue with apathy and self-interest even though climate change is ultimately about the latter. The point of research is being informed so that you are placed to either pressurise governments, big business or understand current affairs enough so that democracy is functioning. To the extent that our population is ignorant, disinterested, etc. then we are ripe for exploitation and there's no real democracy. If you actually had a sense of what was going on then a government which actually represented genuinely healthy human interests could come to power. Instead, people understand the world through mainstream television, newspaper, etc. - if even that - and end up with a distorted view of things. This follows from being passive and not thinking for yourself which you've indicated to me is the case by asking for me to tell you everything you need to know. I'm not interested in you being an extension of my thinking, rather, I'm interested in you learning to think for yourself with the belief that some conclusions are more reasonable and should be followed because of the weight of evidence - such as the threat of global warming. Passively adopting what other people tell you is the underlying problem of society so I'm hardly going to promote that. Why is it only in the area of climate change you want to stop 'thinking', 'wanting' and 'safety' yet presumably these are concerns which dictate the rest of your life or do you simply walk out in front of traffic because you're too hip for any of that stuff? I didn't relate to the music dramatisation I had to admit but really that's an unimportant point. What's essential is the facts and arguments. Why not actually address them rather than a type of superficial character assassination? And it's not whining is the motivation comes from a sincere interest in the well-being of others. Expect more forms of extreme weather with global warming. Ultimately the average global temperature will increase but weather will vary more dramatically depending on the area. Initially it will get colder in some places and hotter in others. Sorry I didn't respond to you on Facebook. I've been feeling a bit unwell and didn't have the energy to engage again. I did actually pick up on your points but I chose not to respond to all of them in the previous post. I don't think I've heard anyone suggest that simply switching off everything is the key. That wouldn't work. Even if we do want to change there will have to be some period of doing so. The point is that technologies and policies do exist but they aren't being used. The current system seeks short-term gains over everything else. We also need to channel more money into developing technology even to completely kill our dependency on oil, etc. These don't have to amount to anarchy although undoubtedly some changes will be required. The point is that global warming is set to totally change the way the world operates anyway. I agree that not voting won't amount to much - not that I can comprehend anyway. Regarding your second point though, I think you've missed a theme I've repeatedly emphasised not just in this thread but in others before. We can't do anything by ourselves; we can only fully achieve change through mass movement. The underpinning of any organisation is a proper understanding of the reality you're organising against. After all, how do you play football until you know the rules? You might be able to have a go but you'll be much more ineffective until you do. The fundamental problem of positive change is a mass of people who can't be bothered to think for themselves or investigate the world; rather they want to be passively fed their world view and are then hostile or afraid of anything that differs to it. It's possible that this quality may win over until it's too late. By yourself you can write to government, protest, vote properly, etc. but none of that is meaningful alone. It is weighted by how many people are doing it. An informed populace could chose a government that served it regarding what was actually good for it. That's where I disagree with Matt because I think the system could potentially work. It's just democracy isn't meaningful without the knowledge to vote according to the way reality actually is. Why is my bringing you evidence of serious problems in the world not enough? I don't really understand the argument that it's not enough? Where do you draw the line of what I'm supposed to do for all of you? I actually find it difficult to understand that there isn't a significant curiosity and concern about serious matters that will probably effect you and others such that you aren't all going off to explore and find out what the situation is and figuring out what you can do to help. I've written this quickly and don't have time to check it. Apologies for bad grammar, etc.

I'll respond to people specifically at some point when I feel well again. I don't have the energy or focus for proper debate at the moment. For now here's an example of the ways in which individuals in government act in the interests of big business regarding the climate. Obviously in this instance those efforts were defeated but, none the less, this is illustrative of motives that do exist and can get their way on a different day. This is also illustrative of what we face here in the UK and all countries within which powerful and wealthy interests reside and shape politics to their own ends. Short-term profit is held to be more important than the type of world we are making and its effects in our future and others. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/24/1764581/7-deadly-amendments-attempted-to-protect-dirty-energy-and-trash-the-climate/

Yeah I often forget that and particularly recently.

That made me smile, thanks

Life's such a tease sometimes. I felt like I was getting better and all of a sudden I'm experiencing pretty intense fatigue, restless leg syndrome, headches, nausea, etc. all of which looked like they were on their way out. I have a complete inability to derive enjoyment from anything at the moment. When your symptoms don't follow the norm you start to wonder if something has become fixed in you. What's especially worse is that today is my female's birthday celebration involving heavy socialising. I'm finding it difficult to concentrate and not move my legs around. Is it better to go and act like a spaz and make an appearance or not go and avoid the embarassment of social ineptitude but potentially piss woman off?

I felt the previous thread had gone awry but I want to continue the discussion on Global Warming just because I think it's the most important topic - both on a social and individual level - facing us. I'm probably going to, much to people's frustration and disinterest , keep updating this thread with articles that indicate something of the reality of climate change both in scientific and political terms. Politically speaking, people need to know about the way both governments and the media either distort our understanding about climate change or doing nothing about it. The following is from a TED talk and is very easy to understand and, I think, properly drives home the dangers we face. Avoid it at your own peril and especially at the peril of future generations - your children. I know people dislike the strong emphasis but I think it's entirely valid and proportionate; much like shouting to deter a car accident or something similar. This is just as serious with the only difference that it relates to a time period out of this moment although already we're seeing serious changes in the weather that are attributable to man-made global warming. It's not embedding?

That sucks dude and there's nothing wrong with being caught up in the feelings of something bad that's happening; it's a natural response. Those feelings are supposed to generate responses to whatever problem and only become problematic if you don't act on them but only dwell on them. Trying to compare your problems to suffering elsewhere doesn't really mean much to be honest. The sensations that follow from your personal problems is a necessary event so that you know something is wrong and you deal with it. The presence of depression, frustration, etc. isn't some form of self-obsession - although it can become that if you start enjoying self-pitying - but it's more like the fuel light on a car. It's saying that in order to maintain your functioning you need to provide yourself with something that isn't really there at the moment. Even if where you are doesn't work out and you had to return to England, sometimes that's just the way it goes. Things that you couldn't have predicted going into a situation can mean something ends up not being viable. That's not anything that you've done yourself it was just a fact of the surrounding environment and events that followed from it. For instance, I booked a meditation retreat last year and ended up having to do resits that ended the day before I went - my fault in a sense but I couldn't have predicted it. I stayed for just over half of the period I had booked but felt too burnt out from exams to properly engage and even feel comfortable there so I tried my best but decided I had to leave. I was becoming even more burnt out trying to meditate every day. I had the sensation of having failed and wasting money but it's not realistic to simply negate the way things go. I've had other retreats that have been amazing and I've wanted to stay when they are reaching their end. Basically, we're not insulated people that should be able to achieve regardless of the surrounding factors and it sounds like you've had an array of surrounding factors that haven't offered you the experience you were after or needed. You probably couldn't have predicted them so you shouldn't be too hard on yourself. Regarding the possibility of uni, it took me years to figure out what I wanted to do but, thinking about it, I knew all along what really interested me. There's just so many external sources and pressures to conform in some sense that we can get confused about what we want and what we think we should be doing. Spend time reading literature on whatever subject seems interesting and find out what a deeper understanding offers you. Sometimes just trying to decide based on the idea of a subject without gaining experience doesn't really offer you much insight and, in actuality, can give you unrealistic expectations. It's hard to understand what you want to do in life and I think people don't recognise that you really have to work at coming to understand. And I totally relate to frustration from injury. Since I started riding I've been injured more than I've been free of injury. I guess in my instance because I'm older now but I dislike it and it worries me that I might end up not being able to ride. I really feel for your prospects there anyway. So it sounds like things are a bit shit for you at the moment so it's okay to feel shit. Don't see that as anything than the natural response of human beings. Recognise it as a call to figure stuff out and change if necessary. It's only problematic if you change it into ideas that impede your ability to resolve whatever problem.

Potentially through the worst of withdrawal which means, after 6 months of heavy use, I'm finally medication free. This is a pretty significant step away from my accident that will hopefully enrichen my life a bit more

Haha, that's an era I definitely don't feel a need to return to in many senses I think I'll use the frame to run a bike I can ride a bit of TGS/competition on but that still roles nicely. I'm particularly interested in that because I think I'm going to keep my 24" brakeless from here on out. Brakes on the 24" keep giving me tendon problems unfortunately.

Looks like it was very close then! Good work and thanks to Ben and all contributors/entrants in the competition. This sort of thing is, I believe, really good for all of our riding. I certainly made more of an effort than normal to push my riding because of it.

f**k you, tendinitis and withdrawal.

Whoah, where the f**k did you come from? I could either be interested in joining but, at the very least, I'll throw some sponsorship your way

Yeah, I didn't actually mean just Vodafone but corporate tax avoidance in its totality which is massive. Vodafone was just one of the easier examples. I actually read that despite 'austerity' measures - in comas because it's austerity for most but not some - our borrowing is still going up. Austerity doesn't work but then it's not supposed to because it creates cheap labour which is highly profitable. And Nick, my sources for the effects of welfare reform are from groups that represent the disabled, mainstream media outlets such as the Guardian but also alternative forms of media outlet such as Z-net. Below contains some important examples of the reality you mostly won't find in most of the media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/12/how-osbornes-benefits-cuts-will-hit-disabled Much of the media has unfortunately overinflated the realities of fraudulent benefit claims. It's actually such a small quantity to be fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. More people don't claim when they could than claim when they're not supposed to... From the DWP website: "Estimates of Fraud and Error by type of error in 2011/12 0.7%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud;" Compare that to the 6bn that Vodafone owes for one year's revenue or the fact that 99.3% of welfare doesn't relate to fraudulent claims. In fact: "0.9%, or £1.4bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to claimant error; 0.5%, or £0.8bn, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to official error." More money (2.2bn) is lost through an inefficient system. It might make more sense to invest a bit more in improving that system than campaigns or advertising about benefit fraud. Although, to me, it's pretty obvious that the government does this as a way of distracting us. Hate is particularly good at clouding your view and switching off your rationality.

You just said you can't change human nature - greed is fixed - yet you said it's changed according to increased opportunities. This suggests it isn't fixed but can change according to surrounding circumstances. Well, the human mind is a surrounding circumstance and it has the power to modify how much greed dictates ones life. It's not hard to reference your own experience to think of times where you've made a decision to be greedy or not. I wouldn't ever deny that greed is not a human potential but it is only that. It can exist in greater or lesser degrees in people according to where they develop, what life circumstances they encounter and, ultimately, how they attempt to shape themselves beyond their developmental period. Ideologies or attitudes can start with just one individual - consider Marxism, Christianity, etc. - and branch out socially becoming broadly accepted to the extent that they shape, not just our thoughts but our feelings. Eventually they can become so common and run so deep within us that they operate in a very subconscious fashion. At this point, such an idea will just seem normal, a part of everyday life that has existed forever and difficult to think too critically of; it's too peripheral. But cultures across time and space have always fluctuated in the extent of their greed. It is the ever present problem of being human. Herbert Spencer, the economist, took the evolutionary notion of 'survival of the fittest' out of its proper context - nature - and applied it to economics as a justification for an elite minority to 'win' wealth over everyone else. People being rich whilst others were in poverty was just the way things are; it is grounded in nature. Darwin was wholly against this extension of notion which was contextually applicable and not meant to be universal such that it had definite meaning for human affairs. Despite his objections the idea become popular and a justification for greed. It's been quite problematic for Western society. Since that period, following the second world war, there followed a period where the UK population felt a sense of unification and there was a push for more egalitarianism. This was a response to the war but also the economic depression that proceeded it; people were more interested in sharing wealth. The consequence was the NHS and the welfare state which we're no dismantling. The initial movement away from these developments began with Thatcher but is tied to business interests of which the government are a part. These people are masters of manipulation. For instance, the current government takes the focus away from the massive tax breaks it gives to large corporations and its dividing up of the NHS amongst itself and its business allies by placing our attention on things such as immigration and welfare claimants. They have managed to make us turn on one another and, even worse, turn on the most vulnerable. Did you know disabled people have been attacked because they are perceived as 'scroungers' despite the fact the government has, in some cases, reduced their benefits below what they need to survive? Did you know that the tax owed by large companies such as Vodafone would cover our deficit if the government actually pursued them? The cost of benefit claimants is massively dwarfed by what's owed. Conversely, the Buddha created a movement that was based on selflessness or the eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. The realisation of what was possible by this man has changed too may people to be denied. I've experienced, despite my involvement in this society, changes in my levels of greed from my readings and practices that come from Buddhism. So, again, I can confirm that greed is not fixed. It can be less or more and can probably be totally eradicated with the proper mental training. Our addiction to technology plays a significant role in the way we are shaped toward greed as well. Sitting kids in front of televisions with adverts constructed by experts of manipulation is obviously going to create intensified needs for this or that. We have had needs for things we don't really need bred into us. And this obviously goes on into adulthood unless you take the time to detach from it.

Unfinished Sympathy is a bit melancholy, I'd say.

I also recommend the above Beethoven offering. Jon Hopkins - Small Memory Max Richter - Vladimir's Blues Max Richter - On the Nature of Daylight Clint Mansell - The Last Man Halogen - Baked Canon in D - with added video so that the you hear the appropriate version Neil Young - Old Man Joy Division - Atmosphere

I'm not sure how sad this is but I find it moving; particularly because it's from my favourite film, The Thin Red Line, which I know to be sad and moving. Hah, just read your message properly rather than skimming. Perhaps not the best option then but you should check it out, none the less. I do find that sadness is often moving though? They seem to be friends...?

Why, today, did my uni tutor have to say that it's not her fault if they deny my suspension of studies this year? I asked if she knew something about that possibility but she said she didn't. It just seems strange that she decided to say that. It's not really a concern I need at the moment when stress has the effect of bringing back my symptoms from the accident. It's possible she's just being a standard rubbish academic and not really thinking about what she's doing in a social context. Annoying though. I can't possibly imagine that a random accident that impedes by ability to study should be grounds for kicking me out of the university? I've made it through to the second year even I have already had to suspend once before on medical grounds. My doctor has written a note fully emphasising my situation and supporting a suspension and return.

Makes me happy seeing Josh go big