1a2bcio8

I'm not really getting anywhere with filming anything at the moment. I the tore the ligaments in my ankle recently and started uni so I haven't even been riding a great deal. Maybe at some point though when things are a bit more settled.

Yeah this barely holds. It rolled out on me in the street just doing a small gap off the pavement. Thanks for the advice though, chaps. And Laurence, I've bought a tgs bike just to mix it up a little. Sometimes it gets boring just riding 24" particularly when you're sometimes on rides where you're the only one on that sort of bike.

Ok, Cheers Mark. I think the pad is pretty square with the rim so I'd out rule that as a cause. Here's a pic anyhow:

It's a Simtra st-1 or something like that. Seems a bit too long and low for my tastes but I'm going to get a higher rise stem and see what that does. May have to look into a new frame though to be honest. Maybe they need bedding in? I mean perhaps you bedded them in for your friend? I think they are basically new. Is that the case with magura pads? I'm not very well versed with trials tech these days... Thanks though.

I've just bought a new stock bike and it came with some metal backed magura pads in yellow. At first the brake had almost zero hold so I cleaned the rim with muck-off and sanded the pads down until they were 'fresh' looking. Now there's a small amount of hold but hardly any at all. Too dangerous to ride with. Can anybody suggest a resolution to my problem? The seller stated that the pads were Tnn but I couldn't find that yellow tnn pads existed? The rim has a light grind at present. Any help would be appreciated as I'm desperate to get out for a ride on my new bike.

Great stuff

I think maybe Sean looked better on the pashley but, still, enjoying his stuff. I miss the Ian and Sean vids of yesteryear.

I have to concur with the above. Mr Watson clearly has talent on a bike but the general direction he's going doesn't really do it for me. Selfishly, I wish his riding was more like how it was in the first few videos he produced. It's all good though if he enjoys what he's doing.

Our moral framework, that is being eroded by relativism, has definite grounds in Christianity. As an example, the marketplace used to be regulated by the church so that is was considered unethical to undercut anyone else that shared your trade or service. Messing with your neighbors livelihood was considered a bad thing. Following the separation of state and church this changed. Now I don't think Christianity is the only method for establishing ways of living but that sort of ethical position is much healthier and saner than the current situation where big business is very unchecked and we find ourselves in the cycle of recessions. The secular world doesn't really have much of a moral center that it is very conscious of at present. Christianity has also blatantly produced very kind and compassionate people which we all usually agree is a good thing. The central message of Christ is good. However, as is properly recognized, Christianity also has a very bad history but that's in so much as that message is missed. Ghandi said "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christian" and I think he had a good point. That leads me to the crux of religion and what you are, like most, probably most unaware of and, in fact, this is part of the reason that religion becomes problematic. The pluralistic view of religion, to which I am subscribed, sees all religion as essentially pointing to the same dimension or realisation of reality (what we'd call mystical experience) although the symbols and myth it produces point to that reality differently in accordance with when and where the respective religion or originator/s exist in space-time. Buddha's realisation occurs in India about 2500 years ago and his system manifests accordingly; Jesus's realisation occurs in the Middle East some 2000 years ago and his system manifests accordingly; and so on and so forth for other realisations elsewhere. The trouble with mystical experience is that it often constitutes the breaking down of ideas which act as a distortion on the way we see existence. The experience goes well beyond words. Therefore they cannot be appropriately contained within ideas although there is little choice if one wants to communicate their existence. This means that until you have a mystical experience you have no real way of understanding really what it is. This means that the language you do use to communicate a mystical experience is very open to misunderstanding. It's likely to be interpreted as literal when in fact it's metaphorical. God is not actually an entity in the way that evolution is not an entity although, as is such with language, it's not entirely difficult to solidify or materialise something that isn't actually that way. Science is aware of the difficulties inherent with using language whereby one creates an existent out of an abstract idea. Earlier in this thread somebody thought that gravity was a thing when really it's just a description of the way observable matter behaves in relation to one another. It's the same with energy which isn't some separate existent; rather things are just energy-ing, so to speak. Integral to the mystical experience or realisation is the transformation of ones psychic state. Love, compassion, etc. can be brought about to a complete extent so that their negative opposites such as greed, hate, etc. are nullified (Buddhists call this nirvana). I see this offering as very valuable. It's just a shame that this origin or kernel of religion isn't the focus of many people being 'religious'. But this is a problem of human beings, in general, rather than the fault of religion. The using of a system of thought to inflict harm can be done with almost anything and that has certainly been the case with political ideology. With regard to the differing view of reality, which I briefly touched upon before, religion in its mystical sense offers an intuitive, holistic and non-dual way of looking at the world. This basically means that of seeing the world without the distortion of ideas and language which we project onto our field of experience. This fact is recognised by philosophers such as Kant and the Phenomenologists although the former denies we can reach the thing in itself, beyond the dualistic view. We usually see the world in terms of this and that but, prior to that, experience is without distinction - infinite. Quantum Physics, as expressed by the respected physicist, David Bohm (see "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"), shows science touching on this basic nature of existence. Although, it's important to note, science will not allow you the experience of it; it will only construct conceptual systems of thought about it which are not it. As said, knowing this reality is intimately linked with a change in psychic state for the better. I do not talk about these things in a purely theoretical sense or just simply from a position of faith. I have had several of experiences although, I will admit, I have only really scratched the surface but, none the less, there's something very convincing about their value. It is claimed that our current way of seeing and feeling in the world pales in comparison to the potentials of deep spiritual understanding and experience. By idolizing I mean inflating something's value. I suspect in theory you wouldn't want to do that with science particularly if you are wanting to be in accord with the scientific ideal of a passionless observer - although I guess that ideal is recognised to be somewhat faulty given the advent of quantum theory. I'm also arguing against trying to place them into some sort of overall hierarchy. Rather, it's about trying to recognize their differing values and where they are useful and where they are not. It's about not being overly glamorised because technology is so impressive and suggests a god like manipulation of matter and therefore assuming that science is the solution to the world#s problems. Currently science is f**king the world just as much as it is saving it - acting out of more positive psychic (emotional) states would counteract this rather than being greedy and holding shiney stuff in the highest esteem. It's also not assuming that religion will be better at giving cosmological descriptions of the universe - it simply doesn't - because of the myths of omnipotence and omniscience associated with the mystical experience of god (non-duality). Each has their respective capabilities and limits. I gave an example of the limitations of evolution in my last post. If evolution gave complete understanding of the human because every action could be reduced to a function of evolution then that system would always be my reference point for making decisions with my life; but it isn't. There are many ways I can understand the human situation that don't include evolution - the mystical experience being one of them. I'm sorry if I've come on a bit strong but I find staunch atheism and scientism quite frustrating when it belittles other views of reality without really understanding them in their complexity and diversity.

I don't think you understood what I said but the ideas and arguments I was putting forward aren't the most accessible if you haven't studied the philosophy underpinning them. And I'm not competent enough to place them in more accessible terms. I certainly wasn't putting forward spirituality and religion as having the only answer. I was describing and implying different systems of thought each with their own kind of contribution and problems to understanding. Evolution is a great system of thought but it has its limits. Science is a great practice yielding useful maps of reality and technologies but it also has its limits. Religion, when understood appropriately, is a great system that offers one a more holistic and intuitive view of reality but that also has its limits. None of them should be idolized and the entire view of reality reduced to their viewpoint. Both religion and science become misused when approached in the dogmatic form that has been so typical of Christianity across the ages. Basically, I like the essence of science and religion. I just don't like the way they are sometimes used.

Where did the potentiality for the formation of life come from then? To say 'chance' or 'random' is incoherent because all that describes is the likelihood of something coming to be or not; it says absolutely nothing about causality and origin. We don't actually "get" anything from evolution, evolution is our concept which describes a limited amount of assumed causal factors involved in the way aspects of life were shaped over time. Evolution, therefore, is also not a cause and consequently, with regards to science, we have no idea why life can come to be a certain way or at all. We just use forms of reasoning and assumption to conclude that condition's x and y have relationship with result z. Science doesn't really answer why it just describes, to a degree, how. With evolution it grasps, in a limited way, segments and points that exist across an assumed causal chain within a time period. This then informs a general theory that has predictive power but only with reference to the types of segments and points that are included within the theory. It necessarily ignores many of the segments and points involved in a process. It's useful but inescapably limited. It doesn't include an entire description of the phenomena it's considering because that's just the way it goes with ideas. Ideas cannot completely reflect what they refer to. A picture is worth a thousand words; how many words is the life process worth then? Trying to reduce one's entire understanding of life to a concept of science completely skims the complexity it contains. The theory of evolution has a truth to it but it's not the whole truth. I do not need to understand my writing this as a function of evolution. There are plenty of other conceptual schemes (including religious ones) besides evolution that can shed light on my motivations and, depending on what result I want, in a much better way.

Wasn't aimed at you anyhow, JD It's mostly a general comment about people in our era although a couple of people in here display the trait more sharply. Humans seem to have a mechanism, so to speak, where they end up mythologizing, dogmatizing, etc. one thing whilst denouncing another thing for mostly the same reasons. It's worth having a dialogue about but, just, probably not here Yes, JT, I am.

I wasn't really referring to the brain in my description of Buddhistic Karma but that would, unfortunately, be the standard method to validate psychological descriptions. A sort of bringing them into the scientific fold. It's interesting to see the blind irony contained in the position of those who clearly hold science in a religious fashion. There's some definite faith, overestimating (implicit myth, omniscience, etc.), reductionism and partisan behavior. As always the complexity and diversity contained in the situation is missed. I wish I had the energy to join in a debate on this, or perhaps I don't because nobody ever really listens to anybody else, but I don't these days. I'll probably read a response though

Karma, in the Buddhistic sense, is simply a description of our psycho-dynamics. The way we behave, that follows from certain feelings and intentions, comes back to us as a conditioning effect on our personality. In other words there's a feedback relationship between who we are, what we do and how that either reshapes or maintains who we are and then, again, what we do next. As an example, if I have a hateful intent which I act on, this comes back to me in the sense of guilt and I feel bad; I then act a certain way out of that resultant feeling perhaps with a drive to better myself. Alternatively I may find some (albeit limited) pleasure from the action which followed from my hateful intention (such as pointing out the 'idiocy' of others) and this begins the formation or maintenance of habit which contributes, in varying degrees, to how I will behave in the next moment or some time in the future. If an action results in pleasure often we will try to repeat it and this can become very ingrained (habitual). Although, obviously the situation is more complex because there are a many psychic factors which converge in a given moment. In other words our psychic world usually operates in a very causal way and the Buddhists call this Karma. This concept does not consider a separate, cosmic entity that operates on the material world to bring you good or bad things because you are a good or bad person but it does describe the way in which your past actions will lead you, in the future, to certain types of bad or good situations in the material world because of your conditioning. Karma is also part of the reason why the Buddha said we are half asleep. Our actions are usually reflexive based on prior experience and intention/action. We're not really choosing to act such and such a way in this moment but rather we are just acting out of the past which has 'programmed' us.

Great stuff both Drew and James!

They've seemingly stopped making them in 24" unfortunately. There may still be one on ebay though. Awesome rims.

That was awesome, Ben. I remember seeing you do some of that stuff actually. You've got such an effortless and smooth style; it's great to watch. One thing though, I remember you having what seemed to be a pretty decent camera that you were using to film. The quality of the video here though is quite low. I'm wondering if you've chosen some bad export settings? Ignore me if I'm missing something...

Awesome tunage and riding. Good work!

We were all struggling with motivation/energy today, after a long riding day on Saturday, and quickly whipping together a mini-vid seemed to get things going (somewhat). Like the rest of the weekend, Flipp rinsed everything. Myself and Nick, not so much Enjoy.

Thought I'd read everything clearly... My bad and thanks for pointing it out Not sure I want to stand around for that long to be honest. I suppose unless other people want to go ride the rest of Bristol in between?

What's the situation in terms of the sort of time we'll be given to ride the course? Not sure how up for it I am if most of my time will be spectating. Particularly as I'm not living in Bristol this month.

That's some v.special riding you've got there, chap. 3-4 moves in particular really stood out. Liked your music choice as well I think Ali is right though, bunnyhops will open up your riding even more given what you're already achieving from pedal hops... I do wish some of your filming was a bit better though. I appreciate this isn't always possible - I'm often unhappy with a lot of my filming especially of myself - but your riding is so good it would be all the more meaningful to have an array of shots like someone following you with the camera, panning, etc. Or a bit more thought placed into what angle shows the riding in the best light. I only say this because your riding is so good and it really deserves to be shown as best as possible. I also know you're a creative type so I'm sure you can do something good if you tried. I look forward to more though!

Could be a form of manipulation... Or was that a rhetorical question implying what I just said. T'internet is difficult to understand that sort of stuff. Girls are masters of manipulation though. In evolutionary terms it makes sense that they know how to use emotions given that they lack the strength to do what we used to be able to do to them to gain control. Not a girl problem but maybe the opposite. Just met a girl on a dating website that seems - blatantly too early to say in actuality - pretty different, in a good way, to the girls I've mostly met. Anyone been on a dating website and had any success?

Dude that sucks giant testicles that you're out for so long. As long as you get back though at least I guess. Anyway, you have my sympathy...

Is that game music nick? Not standard but I thought it was alright. Good riding, chaps. Particularly liked the gap wallride and stoppie to down whip