Everybody draw Mohammed day

This post is very important. Discuss.

The ABCs of Curling - X

is for X-Rated. If the nineties was the decade curling discovered it had an audience, the 2000s will be remembered as the decade curling discovered it had sex appeal. Several internet lists of "Olympic Hotties" at the 2010 Vacouver games were topped by then 43-year-old Canadian skip Cheryl Bernard, and included many other curling athletes - women and men included. But this was not always the way.

In 1987, with the Calgary Olympic games around the corner and curling included as a demonstration sport, the Canadian Curling Association issued a directive to several national level curlers expected to compete at that year's Olympic trials: lose weight. Ed Werenich, a former Canadian and World champion, considered one of the favourites to represent Canada the following year, took great umbrage at the threat of being excluded from the trials if the national body did not consider him 'fit enough.' If a team is winning at an elite level, what matter if the members weigh two hundred, or even three hundred pounds, he argued. He and his vice, Paul Savage, threatened to show up to the trials with a case of beer as a training aid, and a local exotic dancer as their official coach. In the end, cooler heads prevailed, and Eddie showed up without "Marina" and eighteen pounds lighter - a fact on which he blames his loss to this day (the weight difference, not the lack of a stripper).

In the end, the CCA needn't have worried. The general rise in the level of competition in the upper echelons of the game over the past three decades has resulted in elite level curlers looking to improve their overall fitness levels in order to remain competitive on the world stage. Kevin Martin's 2010 Olympic gold medal winning squad became so devoted to their fitness regimens it led vice John Morris to write a book about curling specific exercise routines.

In 2006, following on the rousing success of naked or nearly naked fundraising calendars from firefighters, golfers, quilting guilds, skeptics (and skep-chicks), Andorran professional photographer and competitive curler Ana Arce convinced a dozen world-class curling women to pose nude or semi-nude for their own calendar, Fire on Ice. The project was successful enough to spawn a 2007 version. It lapsed in 2008, but was revived in '09 and published almost every year since, sometimes alternating years between male and female models, and some years featuring both.

Clearly, even in curling, sex sells.
[edited 09/23/2019 to add more up to date calendar information]

Start at the beginning.

Up next: Y is for...

Concerning Debcons, and The Great Tim Tam Heresy

My friends, my dear, dear friends, we have been led astray. The path we have been following faithfully, it turns out, is but a maze of deception. We have been led astray.

Let me explain.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was about seven o'clock on a Saturday night. Most of us had arrived at Lai Toh Heen restaurant near Mount Pleasant and Eglinton for our "Taste of Kitai" dinner and Debcon Bright Weavings Get Together. Things were going about as usual. Guy was buying drinks (thank you, Sir); people were renewing old accquaintances, and making new ones; we were all admiring Niel's authentic first off the press editions of Lord of Emperors, Ysabel, and Under Heaven; I was calling Paula on my cell phone... As is also usual at these gatherings, new people were fitting in like old friends. At one point, I wandered over to the other table to see how things were going. Loni was there. Our eyes met. There was a sudden hush around the table - almost a stillness in the room. And then, she said those three little words: "I brought Tim-tams."

For a moment, I didn't say anything. Then, as is my wont, I tried to make light of the situation. "Where," I said, "are we going to find hot chocolate?"

It was Loni's turn to spend a moment in silence. The look of confusion on her face alarmed me. "What," she finally managed, "what ever would you want with hot chocolate?"

I looked around furtively. There were several of the uninitiated in the room. I leaned in close. I whispered, "you know, for the...slams."

She laughed. Not with malice, but with affection. She patted my hand reassuringly, much as one would pat the hand of a young child who had just announced that he doubted the existence of Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny... or Jesus. "Silly boy," she said. "You do Tim-tam slams with coffee, not hot chocolate."

The room spun. I struggled to maintain my footing on a floor threatening to fall out from under me. "But, but, Thunderchi-, Terry... he said-"

Someone else spoke then. In my condition I could not even tell who, but the words shall be burned indelibly on my soul from this time until eternity: "Paul, Terry didn't drink coffee." At last the heresy was revealed. Terry, Thunderchild, he who preceeded us all, had taught us an alternative Tim-tam slam. He had modified the traditional ritual in order to suit his own, personal tastes and preferences. Our slamming had never been authentic. From the very beginning, we had indulged in a fake cultural phenomenon. Happily, blissfully unaware of the error of our ways, we had slammed Arnott's Chocolate Biscuits using the wrong hot drink. We were like Anglicans taking fake communion, moderate muslim women wearing pants, Hindus eating hamburger. We were heretics.

I welcomed the inquisition. I confessed my sins. I renounced my heretical ways.

I ordered a coffee. Carefully, I nipped the diagonally opposite corners off a delicate chocolate biscuit. I dipped it into the strong, black, unsweetened chinese brew. I drew the warm liquid in through the makeshift chocolate straw. Just as the bitter coffee hit my tongue, I shoved the rapidly softening cookie into my mouth.

Oh.

My.

God!

My friends, the truth was revealed to me that night. The everlasting truth that is the real path of the Tim-tam slam was delivered to me in a blast of mouth watering, soggy, bitter-sweet Arnott's Chocolate Biscuit. And I cannot keep this truth to myself. It fills me to overflowing. I must pass it on. Hear me now, friends. Get up off your couch. Get youself down to your local imported confectioner and buy a package of Tim-tams. Pick up a coffee at Dunkin Donuts on the way home - black, no sugar. And then, my friends, my children, my dear, dear children, and then... Slam those babies!

Hallelujah!

So you want to play mind games...

A couple of years ago I happened across the blog of one Denyse O'Leary. One of many, actually - she maintains about fourteen, it seems, and spends most of her time contriving to link from each to all the others in an attempt to create some kind of meta black hole. Mixed in between the links to her other blogs, and the further links to her Amazon page where she hawks her books, she manages to cram in some confused, rambling anti-"Darwinist" screeds, and Intelligent Design apologetics.

I don't remember the exact matter in question, but I left a comment on one of Ms. O'Leary's posts asking what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question. The comment was deleted in extremely short order. I emailed Ms. O'Leary, asking her why she had deleted the comment, to which she replied that she only allowed comments that were truthful, or factual, or some similar descriptor. Funny, that. I had thought the point I raised was factual. What Denyse really meant was that she only allowed comments that agreed with her world view and personal opinion.

I guess those weren't all that common, as her blogs no longer accept any comments at all.

That kind of reaction, censorship in order to protect oneself against uncomfortable and inconvenient realities, is all too common in the world of "Woo." Whether it is religion, or alternative medicine, or conspiracy theory, woo-meisters will always choose to end a dialogue when presented with actual facts that are difficult for them to rebut. On another occasion, I wrote a blog post about a local Homeopath in which I discussed some of the claims she made on her public website. Rather than address my criticism of her claims, she chose to complain to my ISP, and they chose to delete my blog entry with no warning, no explanation, and no recourse.

These events are brought to mind by a couple of similar experiences I have recently had, although not with people who traditionally fall into the category of "woo." At least people who do not, at first look, appear to fall into that category...


The first instance occurred last week, when I was directed to a web forum for audiophiles. Now, audiophilia is generally not grouped in with other "woo" because it really does no harm to individuals - unless you count to the wallets of those who fall under its sway. However, the claims made by audiophiles, and by the companies that make and sell the products they buy, are equally as specious as those of any homeopath, astrologer, or Catholic Priest. On this occasion, I read a forum thread talking about accessory power cables available for high end audio equipment. Never mind the miles of questionable wire the power flows through to get to one's house, apparently changing a three foot power cable from the wall to one's amp can result in remarkable improvemments in sound.

The person who directed me to the discussion - a Grammy winning sound engineer - had spoken up to say that he had done careful listening tests and was unable to hear a difference between different power cables - or any reasonable quality speaker or interconnect cables for that matter. He was looking for some support from some reasonable and skeptical people, so I registered for the forum, and posted a reply.

I did not criticise any of the posters. I did not accuse them of lying, or of being deluded, or of being stupid. I wrote one simple, factual sentence. I said, "if you can successfully tell the difference between different cables in a controlled listening test, you can win one million dollars." That was all.

Being a brand new member, my post was not published immediately, rather directed to the moderation queue, so I determined to come back later to see if there were any replies. Later, I was unable to login to the forum. It appears that the forum moderators/administrators deleted my first and only post, and immediately IP banned me from the forum. For making a simple statement of fact.


The second thing happened just this past weekend. Have you seen the NHL commercials currently airing in which famous plays are "rewound"? The first one I saw was the one that asks, "what if Orr didn't fly," and shows Bobby's iconic goal being "unscored", and Orr flying backwards through the air to land on his feet and retreat from the net. The ads end with the line, "history will be made." I believe the suggestion is that, even if the NHL's most famous plays had never happened, new history will be made, starting in this year's playoffs.

The ads have become popular fodder for YouTube spoofs, with video creators picking out all their favourite imfamous plays, and asking, "what if..." They are being reposted all over the internet. One of my Facebook "friends" posted one to her profile showing the contentious triple overtime goal by Brett Hull that won the Stanley Cup for Dallas over Buffalo in 1999. This spoof asks the question, "what if Brett didn't cheat?" Of course, this "friend" is a Buffalo fan.

I commented on her link, pointing out that Brett did not, in fact, "cheat;" that the goal, though hotly contested by the Buffalo team, was completely legal. She promptly responded that I didn't know what I was talking about, that she was a huge hockey fan, and had been all her life, therefore she knew the goal was illegal, and that "they" had changed the rule right after that game (the inisinuation was that the NHL had somehow tried to post-legitimize Hull's goal).

Well! Anyone who knows me knows that attempting to present me with "facts" based on ideology rather than information is just begging to be schooled. I did the research. I scoured YouTube for every replay of that goal I could find so I could refresh my memory of exactly how it had unfolded. I looked up the rule in question - the crease crashing rule that was in force for only that one year - and read it carefully. I compared the details clearly visible in the replays to the rule. I then returned to comment again. I quoted the exact language of the rule that pertained to Hull's goal, and pointed out where and why in the replay it was evident that the goal was legal. I also explained that the rule wasn't changed in order to validate Hull's goal, but because it was a poorly thought out rule to start with. The rule did, in fact, do what was intended, that is, reduce the instances of players crashing the net in order to distract and impede the goaltender. Unfortunately, it also resulted in dozens of goals being called back that should not have been; goals on which there had been no goaltender interference or distraction, either intentional or inadvertent.

The response to my reply? She "unfriended" me. It was more important to her to preserve her illusions about the perceived massive NHL conspiracy against the Buffalo Sabres, than to engage in honest dialogue about the actual facts of the matter. She was just like the audiophiles, or the Homeopath, or Denyse O'Leary, all of whom chose to avoid dialogue rather than confront reality; to surround themselves with sycophants and toadies and yes-men who were willing to join them in drinking the woo kool-aid.

Me, I choose to live in the world of fact, and deal with uncomfortable realities as they present themselves.

Weekend Assignment #311: Cheese It!

via Outpost Mavarin

Karen says:

Weekend Assignment #311: What is your favorite kind of cheese and why? Do you have it often, or just occasionally?
Extra Credit: Is there a kind of cheese you hate?

Yeah, I'm a cheese fan. A big cheese fan. Last summer the wife and I went down to the St. Lawrence Market and bought rice and cheese. We bought nothing other than rice and cheese, and we spent about seventy five dollars. Mmmm, cheese.

Lessee, in the fridge right this instant we have: cheddar (of course - probably a couple of different varieties), mozzarella (for all that Italian cooking), provolone (goes good on cold cut sandwiches), swiss (no - wait, I just finished the swiss for my night time snack), roquefort (a form of blue cheese {although roquefort's marbling is more green} that I think I will use in an omelet this weekend), Kraft processed food-type cheese-flavoured slices (Matt won't eat a grilled cheese sandwich made with anything else), and Beemster.

I saved the best for last.

Mmmm, Beemster. We discovered Beemster several years ago, and enjoyed it so much we try to always have some in the house. It is a very versatile cheese, going well with crackers or by itself. It also melts well, making it great for cooking. I like to grate it over cauliflower, or put it on burgers. Then there's the onion, bacon, Beemster and lime omelet. Very yummy.

Is there a cheese I don't like? I haven't found one yet. But, you know, I haven't tried them all, so I guess anything's possible.

The ABCs of Curling - W

is for Weight. Of the many aspects of the game of curling, perhaps the most difficult to master is weight control - that is, how hard or soft to throw the stone to achieve the desired result. Beginners are generally taught two weights: draw and hit. Draw weight is what one throws to put a rock in the rings, and hit weight is what one throws to take one out.

Due to the four rock free guard zone rule, and because they start at the lead position, beginners learn, in very short order, that there are actually two draw weights, one to put a rock in the house, and one to put a guard in front of the rings. A few more weeks in, and they will probably be asked to throw a slightly heavier draw weight, intended to tap a rock back without actually removing it from the rings.

A curler who has moved on to join a more competetive team may be asked to throw several new weights in the hit category. Most teams will establish what they call a "normal" hit weight - a default weight for most take-out shots. Some circumstances dictate a change in that weight, and player will eventually be asked to learn to throw a firmer weight shot for situations in which more than one rock is to be moved, or if a long roll is desired, and a lighter weight shot, used when some curl is necessary, or when the team wants to avoid having the shooter roll out of the rings.

Learning to throw all of these different weights consistently requires throwing many practice rocks over many years. My current team usually uses about eleven different weights. Lessee, there's long guard, tight guard, draw in front of the T, and draw behind the T. Then there's back-line, hack, bumper, control, normal, firm, and peel hit weights. At higher levels of competition, the weights are broken into even smaller demarcations. During the Olympic curling coverage, you might have heard the sweepers calling out numbers as the rocks travelled down the sheet. These numbers were telling the skip where they thought the rock was going to end up. The high level curlers break the in-play area of the curling sheet into ten zones (plus one - see diagram). Those zones are defined as, 1-long guard, 2-halfway guard, 3-tight guard, 4-top twelve foot ring, 5-top eight foot, 6-top four, 7-t-line, 8-back four, 9-back eight, 10-back twelve, and 11-just through. That's in addition to whatever number of hit weight shots they have to master.

Now, the throwers are not all alone in trying to put a rock in a certain spot. If you remember our discussion of sweeping, you'll recall that two strong sweepers can extend a rock's travel by up to twelve feet. So, if a thrower can get the rock to within a few feet of its intended target, the sweepers can do the rest. In fact, most skips rely on their sweepers to judge the weight of a running rock, and sweep as necessary to arrive at the right spot. The exception to that, of course, is if one throws the stone too heavy. There is nothing a sweeper can do (legally) to slow down a rock thrown with too much weight.

<- Start at the beginning.

Up next: X is for...

Apparently, the Olympics are over

Good thing The Brier starts this weekend.

Where all you all coming from?

This blog, which usually gets between five and fifteen unique visitors per day, has averaged over 60 hits a day over the last ten days, with a high of 91 unique visitors on February 20th. Virtually all of that traffic has been generated by Google searches for curling related terms. The most common searches have been for variations on 'curling t line'. That comprised about 41% of incoming traffic. Another twelve percent of people were looking for information on curling measuring devices, and six percent seem to want to know how thick curling ice is.

The ABCs of curling series is certainly not an in-depth look at the game, but I hope those of you who have checked it out have found something interesting to take away.

The ABCs of Curling - V

is for Vice, also known as the third on a curling team. The term is a diminuitive of vice-skip, meaning, perhaps, assistant skip. Traditionally, the vice-skip throws the fifth and sixth rocks of each end, and then holds the broom in the house for the skip's rocks.

As the vice is responsible for the house, and making sweeping calls during the skip's rocks, it is important that he or she have a good understanding of the game, and the ice. The skip will often discuss shots and strategy with the vice during the game, as well.

While I am of the firm opinion that, on a competetive team, every position's rocks are of equal importance, the vice rocks come at a crucial point during the end. The vice is called upon to make the set-up shots that will give the skip the opportunity to complete the end according to the game plan. As well, if the end is not setting up as desired, the vice may be counted on to provide the bail-out shots - tough double take-outs, or touchy freezes that will allow a team to escape from an end that is going against them.

The vice is also often the line of communication between the skip and the front end players. He has to manage the lead and second for the skip, as well as manage the skip for the lead and second. The best vices are often true diplomats and negotiators.

In some instances, the vice delivers the last two stones in an end, while the skip throws the third pair. The most notable example of that being the six time Brier champion, four time world champion Randy Ferby rink from Alberta, on which Ferby called the game - having the best grasp of strategy - but vice David Nedohin - who was the best thrower on the team - threw the last two stones. Sometimes the roles are even more fluid. On the Colleen Jones 1999-2005 rink - considered the most successful women's team of all time - lead Nancy Delahunt held the broom for skip Colleen Jones' shots.

The rule governing the positions of team members only states that the players must declare a throwing order at the beginning of the game, and must throw in that order for the entire game. There is a penalty for throwing a rock out of order. Outside of throwing order, there are no rules that govern where and what the players do. The team member that holds the broom and calls the game can change at any time during a match, as long as the team continues throw in the same order as they began the game.

<- Start at the beginning.

Up next: W is for...

The ABCs of Curling - U

is for Ursel, one of Canada's great curling families. Jim Ursel learned to curl in Winnipeg, and had early success as a member of the 1954 Manitoba Provincial Schoolboy Championship rink of Gene Walker. Eight years later, as a third for Norm Houck, he won the Manitoba Men's Provincial Championship, and made his first appearance at the Brier, where the team finished in a three way tie for first place, losing in the tie-breaker to teams Hec Gervais and Ernie Richardson.

In the seventies, Ursel moved to Quebec, where he won the Provincial Championships six times between '74 and '80. His team of Art Lobel, Don Aitkien, and Brian Ross won the 1977 Brier - the first ever Brier win for a team out of Quebec - and went on to finish second at the World Championships in Karlstad, Sweden to home team Ragnar Kamp. In addition, he was selected first team all-star skip at both the '74 and '77 Brier.

Ursel later returned to Manitoba, where he won the Senior Provincial Championships in both 1990 and '91, going on to win the national title both years. As an interesting bit of trivia, his vice from 1977, Art Lobel, was on the 1989 and 1992 Senior Canadian Championship winning team of Jim Sharples.

Jim's son, Bob Ursel, following in his father's footsteps (or slider path?), is a former Canadian and World Junior Champion, and has appeared in the Brier three times.

1977 Brier Champions Jim Ursel, Art Lobel, Don Aitken, and Brian Ross
(plus some dude from MacDonald Tobacco)

<- Start at the beginning.

Up next: V is for...

Pear Chutney

Put about a half a cup of white wine in a small pot or pan. Add about a half a cup of malt vinegar, and a tablespoon or so of brown sugar. Sprinkle in some cloves to taste. Peel, core and chop two pears and drop them in there, too. Bring to a boil, reduce heat and simmer until the pear pieces are soft enough to mash. Continue simmering until liquid is reduced enough that sauce is at your desired consistancy. Cool and serve with your favourite pork dish. We had it with garlic and clove rubbed tenderloin. Yummy!

(quantities are rough estimates because I didn't measure anything - I was just making it up as I went)

The ABCs of Curling - T

is for...hmmm. Like 'H', T is for a lot of things in curling. There is a T-line, which crosses the centre line in the exact centre of the rings (or house). It is usually desirable to keep ones rocks "in front of the T." There is, of course, the "takeout" shot, in which an opponent's rock or rocks are removed from play - including the always exciting triple takeout.

T can be for timing. Several times a year I am asked by new curlers, "whatcha doing with that there stopwatch?" By measuring the time it takes a rock to travel between two predetermined points on the ice, one can extimate how much weight to throw for a given shot. By using two points close to the delivery end, for example, timing how long a rock takes to travel from the back line to the hog line, the sweepers can estimate how far the rock will travel and whether it will require sweeping.

Other things T can be for are Tap Back, a light weight hit, and twelve foot, the largest ring in the house. But, the most important T in curling is the T in Team. Curling is a team game like very few others. Each player throws the same number of rocks, and it is impossible, with so few members, to hide a weak thrower at any position. A missed shot at any point during the end can be disasterous. Even the very first rock thrown, depending on where it comes to rest, will have a significant impact on the outcome of any given end.

Curling is such a social game, that the team extends beyond the field of play. Pick the four best players available, and put them together on one team. They might win a lot of games, but if they don't get along off the ice, they won't be a team for long.

<- Start at the beginning.

Up next: U is for...