The Travel Thread

[TDub]

Had a great day rafting the Deschutes River today.

We had three boats total. The boat I was in flipped twice, all in all…all 3 of our boats dumped at least once.

Water was brisk, great fun with our group of 18. Looking forward to coming back.

what part of the Deschutes? I'm halfway surprised the rivers still running good enough to have a good trip this late in the year.

Last year (and this year) my buck tag is for the area between the Deschutes and the John Day. There's some steep canyon country through there that gets tougher on these aging knees haha.

The canyons, the rivers, and the plateaus full of wheat field expanses (at least in the northern half of the deschutes, the last...80.miles or so before it dumps into the columbia)....its beautiful country.

[KUTradition]

no such thing as poisonous snakes, gutter (at least not in the way i presume you’re thinking)

they’re venomous

that neck of the woods has Northern Pacific rattlesnakes, but rattlesnakes in general don’t tend be actually in water (not impossible though). they would definitely be adjacent tho

is that what they are? not western diamondback?

they're definetely in the rocky areas above the deschutes...I can attest to that.

not in Oregon (at least not naturally)



one of the common names for the complex of species that includes many in the western U.S. is the “western rattlesnake”(which would include Northern and Southern Pacific rattlesnakes, as well as most of those found in Utah), but the Western Diamondback (Crotalus atrox) is a single, specific species occurring in the southwest

[pdub]

that's just willful ignorance; there are specific definitions of each

organisms are venomous if they have a mechanism to deliver their toxins (fangs, spines, stingers, etc)…they are poisonous if they require you to ingest the toxins (mushrooms can be poisonous, but not venomous)

there’s a reason for the distinction. it’s not just preference

Sorry man, most of America has shifted over to not really making a big deal of the difference.
( I understand what the differences are, thanks )
I get it bothers you because of your field but I think 95% of the US doesn't care and in this case, that's OK.

[TDub]

that's just willful ignorance; there are specific definitions of each

organisms are venomous if they have a mechanism to deliver their toxins (fangs, spines, stingers, etc)…they are poisonous if they require you to ingest the toxins (mushrooms can be poisonous, but not venomous)

there’s a reason for the distinction. it’s not just preference

I think it comes from (at least partially) simplify it for kids. I'm guilty of saying poisonous when I mean venomous but I know the difference.

For instance there was a bullsnake in our yard last week. I caught it to relocate it (bullsnakes are great and beneficial) but before I did I had my kids come look at it and told them that this particular snake was not harmful and was a friend...BUT they should never ever touch it and if they see one to get me because there is another snake we have that looks damn near exactly like the bull snake that is a bad mama mamma.

I told them venomous at first and they looked at me...so I just said bad...its poisonous....they understood that because they know poison is bad and my main goal was to not have them grab a rattler some day on accident.
We're working on it.....

[TDub]

no such thing as poisonous snakes, gutter (at least not in the way i presume you’re thinking)

they’re venomous

that neck of the woods has Northern Pacific rattlesnakes, but rattlesnakes in general don’t tend be actually in water (not impossible though). they would definitely be adjacent tho

is that what they are? not western diamondback?

they're definetely in the rocky areas above the deschutes...I can attest to that.

not in Oregon (at least not naturally)

interesting...I didnt know that. I assumed they were diamondbacks. But I guess I never bothered actually checking.

[KUTradition]

that's just willful ignorance; there are specific definitions of each

organisms are venomous if they have a mechanism to deliver their toxins (fangs, spines, stingers, etc)…they are poisonous if they require you to ingest the toxins (mushrooms can be poisonous, but not venomous)

there’s a reason for the distinction. it’s not just preference

Sorry man, most of America has shifted over to not really making a big deal of the difference.
( I understand what the differences are, thanks )
I get it bothers you because of your field but I think 95% of the US doesn't care and in this case, that's OK.

grunt grunt

edit: you were once taught the difference, yes?

so why do you now CHOOSE to not make the distinction? (i personally blame a lot on the media, and their improper usage)

obviously, this particular example matters more to me, but i think it exemplifies a larger issue of proper word usage in our society. definitions matter.

[Sparko]

The fight for specificity is a long one and never truly over.

[pdub]

obviously, this particular example matters more to me, but i think it exemplifies a larger issue of proper word usage in our society. definitions matter.

In this case, in the common every day usage, ( certainly not when actually discussing something biologically/scientifically in any kind of more than casual reference ) it doesn't.
It's going to be OK.

If someone interrupted me if I said something like, there aren't any poisonous snakes common to Maine, with 'actually you mean venomous' they are getting a hard eyeroll.

[KUTradition]

you do you

[pdub]

When my clients or people I work with mistake UI with UX and the reverse, I don't interrupt them and give them the correct definition because, in the end, I know what they meant, and it's gonna be OK.

[KUTradition]

you do you

seriously, it’s fine

nobody said it wasn’t going to be ok

[KUTradition]

When my clients or people I work with mistake UI with UX and the reverse, I don't interrupt them and give them the correct definition because, in the end, I know what they meant, and it's gonna be OK.

if i were your client, i’d appreciate you pointing out and explaining the difference. to me it would indicate a certain level of expertise

[pdub]

When my clients or people I work with mistake UI with UX and the reverse, I don't interrupt them and give them the correct definition because, in the end, I know what they meant, and it's gonna be OK.

if i were your client, i’d appreciate you pointing out and explaining the difference. to me it would indicate a certain level of expertise

That's fine and good but trust me when I say this, you are in the minority.
I get what they want and mean so it's only wasting our time together to give them a lesson in the field that I specialize in.

[jhawks99]

We all have our peeves. I understand the difference between venomous and poisonous, and generally use the correct term. I notice when others don't. It bothers me a little but I don't correct them.

My peeves are, you guessed it, food related. There are a ton of them.
I've seen chicken bruschetta on a menu. This tells me that the restaurant is not serious. Bruschetta is the toasted bread, usually done over an open fire. It can be topped with tomatoes, garlic and herbs.
My biggest is confit. This is pretty specific. It is good or duck leg quarters that are salted over night and then slowly cooked submerged in its on fat. It is then stored in it's own fat for later use. This was a way to preserve meat for the winter. I've seen tomato confit on menus and wonder what the hell it is. You can probably salt a tomato over night but how do you cook it in its own fat.

There are plenty more, trust me. Am I being pedantic? Is Traddie? Maybe, but words are supposed to mean something.

[pdub]

We all have our peeves. I understand the difference between venomous and poisonous, and generally use the correct term. I notice when others don't. It bothers me a little but I don't correct them.

My peeves are, you guessed it, food related. There are a ton of them.
I've seen chicken bruschetta on a menu. This tells me that the restaurant is not serious. Bruschetta is the toasted bread, usually done over an open fire. It can be topped with tomatoes, garlic and herbs.
My biggest is confit. This is pretty specific. It is good or duck leg quarters that are salted over night and then slowly cooked submerged in its on fat. It is then stored in it's own fat for later use. This was a way to preserve meat for the winter. I've seen tomato confit on menus and wonder what the hell it is. You can probably salt a tomato over night but how do you cook it in its own fat.

There are plenty more, trust me. Am I being pedantic? Is Traddie? Maybe, but words are supposed to mean something.

Be all means, absolutely be bothered by it.
I get this all the time with people referring to something dealing with branding/web dev that doesn't mean what they think it does.
But if you're stopping the waiter, showing him/her the menu and pointing out 'actually there really isn't such a thing as chicken bruschetta' then that gets the eyeroll treatment ( from me ).

[jhawks99]

We all have our peeves. I understand the difference between venomous and poisonous, and generally use the correct term. I notice when others don't. It bothers me a little but I don't correct them.

My peeves are, you guessed it, food related. There are a ton of them.
I've seen chicken bruschetta on a menu. This tells me that the restaurant is not serious. Bruschetta is the toasted bread, usually done over an open fire. It can be topped with tomatoes, garlic and herbs.
My biggest is confit. This is pretty specific. It is good or duck leg quarters that are salted over night and then slowly cooked submerged in its on fat. It is then stored in it's own fat for later use. This was a way to preserve meat for the winter. I've seen tomato confit on menus and wonder what the hell it is. You can probably salt a tomato over night but how do you cook it in its own fat.

There are plenty more, trust me. Am I being pedantic? Is Traddie? Maybe, but words are supposed to mean something.

Be all means, absolutely be bothered by it.
I get this all the time with people referring to something dealing with branding/web dev that doesn't mean what they think it does.
But if you're stopping the waiter, showing him/her the menu and pointing out 'actually there really isn't such a thing as chicken bruschetta' then that gets the eyeroll treatment ( from me ).

Yeah, I don't do that but I have to stop myself. Mostly because I know the waiter didn't write the menu.

Mrs. 99 and I were out at a French restaurant a few months ago. I mispronounced gougeres when we ordered them. I can make them, but apparently I can't pronounce them. He did correct me, politely and I was glad for it.

[ousdahl]

sooo

who's spent time in the Arkansas Valley?

Towns like Salida, Boner Vista, Leadville, etc

[jfish26]

When my clients or people I work with mistake UI with UX and the reverse, I don't interrupt them and give them the correct definition because, in the end, I know what they meant, and it's gonna be OK.

if i were your client, i’d appreciate you pointing out and explaining the difference. to me it would indicate a certain level of expertise

That's fine and good but trust me when I say this, you are in the minority.
I get what they want and mean so it's only wasting our time together to give them a lesson in the field that I specialize in.

I get the competing tensions in these sorts of conversations.

For me - with the vast majority of my projects being chunky, expensive, expansive, cumulative and weeks-to-months-to-years long - the educational process is a vital one to keep spend from spiraling out of control. A misunderstanding at step 17 of 635 can cause a problem that could have been corrected in a half hour at the time, but with bigger implications (if uncorrected) that won't reveal themselves until step 481. I tend to avoid getting eyerolls when I explain that there is a cost reason behind the education.

But if I'm doing something more self-contained and one-off, I will likely let immaterial issues go uncorrected.

[Overlander]

Had a great day rafting the Deschutes River today.

We had three boats total. The boat I was in flipped twice, all in all…all 3 of our boats dumped at least once.

Water was brisk, great fun with our group of 18. Looking forward to coming back.

what part of the Deschutes? I'm halfway surprised the rivers still running good enough to have a good trip this late in the year.

Last year (and this year) my buck tag is for the area between the Deschutes and the John Day. There's some steep canyon country through there that gets tougher on these aging knees haha.

The canyons, the rivers, and the plateaus full of wheat field expanses (at least in the northern half of the deschutes, the last...80.miles or so before it dumps into the columbia)....its beautiful country.

We did Maupin down, pulled out for the falls, got back on the river a few miles below the falls…then back for lunch and then back out a few miles above Maupin for another run.

Water stays consistent up there, I am told.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

no such thing as poisonous snakes, gutter (at least not in the way i presume you’re thinking)

they’re venomous

that neck of the woods has Northern Pacific rattlesnakes, but rattlesnakes in general don’t tend be actually in water (not impossible though). they would definitely be adjacent tho

Yes, I probably meant venomous. I should have known/realized the difference.
I don't like snakes.
My guess is there are/were other animals in the vicinity of where Overlander was that can also be dangerous.
I like most animals. I still fear those who I feel can eat me if they chose to do as such.