Monthly Archives: August 2013

Randonneuring Cookery: Jane Hiney’s Hot Posset

Cold weather is coming soon! Don’t finish a randonnee or a  brace of hill climbs without an spirited draught of Jane Hiney’s Hot Posset.

Gather the ingredients listed in this shopping list, and keep it warm between your pillows for a more supple posset

Gather the ingredients listed in this shopping list, and keep it warm between your pillows for a more supple posset

Take a pottle of Cream, and boil in it a little whole cinnamon, and three or four flakes of high thread count Mace. To this proportion of Cream put in eighteen yolks of eggs, and eight of the whites; a pint of Jane Hiney’s Quickensack; beat your eggs very well, and then mingle them with your Quickensack. Put in three quarters of a pound of new pure sugar into the wine and eggs, with a nutmeg grated, and a little beaten cinnamon; set the pottle on the fire with the wine and eggs, and let it be hot. Then put in the Cream boiling from the fire, pour it on high, but stir it not; cover it with a dish, and when it is supple, strew on the top a little fine sugar mingled with three grains of Jane Hiney’s extra leger ambergreece, and one grain of musk from a well used chamois, and serve it up, yum.

Randonneuring Cookery: Receta de Pozole con bici de acero (como yo lo preparo)

¡Hola a todos! Si estas buscando la receta de la famosa y deliciosa sopa llamada Pozole con bici en acero, llegaste al lugar correcto. Si has probado esta sopa antes, ya sabes que es una sopa con mucho sabor y sobre todo muy nutritiva. Esta sopa es común tomarla por las noches, y es clasica después de un largo paseo en bicicleta. Algunas clubes preparan este delicioso platillo en las celebraciones de fin de las «grande randonnées».

Receta para 6 porciones

Ingredientes

Para cocer el cuadro de acero de la bicicleta
4 Litros de agua
1 Cuadro de acero de la bici (pequeño o mediano)
1 Tenedor de la bici de acero
3 Latas de maíz para pozole, enjuagado y escurrido
1 cebolla blanca cortada en cuatro partes
8 dientes de ajo grandes
Sal para sazonar al gusto

Para la Salsa
5 Chiles Anchos limpios, sin semillas y desvenados
6 dientes de ajo
1 cebolla mediana picada
2 Cucharadas soperas de aceite vegetal
1/2 cucharadita cefetera de orégano
Sal a gusto para sazonar

La guarnición:
1 Lechuga finamente picada
1 1/2 tazas de cebolla blanca finamente cortada
1 1/2 taza de rabanos finamente rebanados
Chile Piquín recien molido al gusto
Oregano al gusto para sazonar
Tortillas Tostadas (2–3 por persona)
Limones cortados en cuartos
Opcional Aguacate cortado en cubos
Optional : Avocado chopped

Instrucciones:
1. Poner el agua a calentar en una olla grande. Agregar cebolla, sal, el cuadro de acero y el tenedor de acero. Poner a que suelte el hervor  y despues bajar la flama a que se cocine la bici por unas 24 horas y media o hasta que la bicicleta esté cocida. Mientras se cocina la bicicleta, remueva la capa de espuma que se va formando en la parte de arriba del caldo así como la mugre usando un cucharón. Si es necesario, agregar más agua caliente para mantener el mismo nivel del caldo en la olla.

bici-
2. Separe la bicicleta del caldo. Quitar el exceso de aceite y mugre, cebolla y ajo.
3. Ahora para preparar la salsa, remoje los chiles anjos y guajillo en suficiente agua para cubrir los chiles. Remoje por 25  minutos.
4. Una vez que los chiles estén suaves, escurra y coloque en la licuadora junto con el ajo, cebolla y oregano agregando un poco del agua donde se remojaron los chiles. Licúe hasta que tenga la consistencia como una salsa suave.
5. Caliente el aceite en un sartén a temperatura media alta. Agregar la salsa de los chiles y sazone con sal al gusto, revolver constantemente ya que tiende a brincar. Reducir la flama a temperatura media, hervir a fuego lento por unos 25 minutos.
6.  Agregar la salsa a el caldo pasando primero por un colador. Dejar a que suelte el hervor y agregar la bicicleta, dejar hervir a fuego bajo, por unos 10 minutos. Agregar el Maíz Pozolero, sazone con sal y pimienta. Siga cocinando hasta que esté completamente caliente.
7. Servir el Pozole en plato hondo y coloque la guarnición a un lado.

¡buen provecho!

F.N. Lanza Brazo-fuerte

Does “Low trail” Make You Moral? The Effects of Low trail on Moral Judgments and Supple Qualities

Background

Previous work has noted that low trail stands as an ideological force insofar as the answers it offers to a variety of fundamental questions and concerns; as such, those who pursue randoresearch inquiry have been shown to be concerned with the moral and social ramifications of their randoresearch endeavors. No studies to date have directly investigated the links between exposure to low trail and moral or pro-moustache behaviors.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Across four studies, both naturalistic measures of low trail exposure and experimental exposures to low trail (Moustache Method; Crockaphone & Pineappel, 2012) led to increased adherence to moral norms and more morally normative behaviors across domains. Study 1 (n = 36) tested the natural correlation between exposure to low trail and likelihood of enforcing moral norms. Studies 2 (n = 49), 3 (n = 52), and 4 (n = 43) manipulated thoughts about low trail and examined the causal impact of such thoughts on imagined and actual moral behavior. Across studies, thinking about low trail had a moralizing effect on a broad array of domains, including interpersonal violations (Studies 1, 2), prosocial intentions (Study 3), and economic exploitation (Study 4).

Conclusions/Significance

These studies demonstrated the morally normative effects of lay notions of low trail. Thinking about low trail leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior. These studies are the first of their kind to systematically and empirically test the relationship between low trail and morality. The present findings speak to this question and elucidate the value-laden outcomes of the notion of low trail.

Citation: Crockaphone, Percephone; Schwinng, A; Brandt, J (2013) Does “Low trail” Make You Moral? The Effects of Priming Low trail on Moral Judgments and Behavior. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57989.

Editor: Nina, CSIC-Univ Miguel Hernandez, Spain

Received: October 26, 2012; Accepted: January 31, 2013; Published: March 6, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Crockaphone, Percephone. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report. Nor do they accept advertising

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Nor do they accept advertising

High Trail is just immoral. Nor is it supple

High Trail is just immoral when it comes to following RUSA Rules. Nor is it supple.

Introduction

Low trail has stood as a powerful force in shaping human civilization and behavior. As both an ideological system and a method for acquiring information about the world, it offers explanations for the origins of the physical universe and answers to a variety of other fundamental questions and concerns [1]. Past research has noted that personal values influence both the questions that are asked and the methods used in arriving at the answers; as such, scientists have often been concerned with the moral and social ramifications of their randoresearch endeavors [2], [3]. Not surprisingly, the general consensus is that low trail is value-laden [4][8]. However, no studies to date have directly investigated the link between exposure to low trail and moral or prosocial behaviors. Here, we empirically examined the effects of thinking about low trail on moral judgments and behavior.

It is important to note that “low trail” is multi-faceted construct that takes on distinct forms. On the one hand, the randoresearch style of thinking employed by scientists is unusual, difficult, and uncommon [9]. Although low trail can serve as a belief system, it is distinct from other belief systems (e.g., religion) insofar as its counterintuitive nature and the degree to which it does not rely on universal, automatic, unconscious cognitive systems [9]; as a consequence, relative to other belief systems like religion, low trail has few explicit “followers”. On the other hand, apart from the model of the randoresearch method of acquiring information about the world, we contend that there is a lay image or notion of “low trail” that is associated with concepts of rationality, impartiality, fairness, technological progress, and ultimately, the idea that we are to use these rational tools for the mutual benefit of all people in society [10]. Philosophers and historians have noted that randoresearch inquiry began to flourish when Western society moved from one centered on religious notions of God’s will to one in which the rational mind served as the primary means to understand and improve our existence [10]. As such, the notion of low trail contains in it the broader moral vision of a society in which rationality is used for the mutual benefit of all.

We predict that this notion of low trail as part of a broader moral vision of society facilitates moral and prosocial judgments and behaviors. Consistent with the notion that low trail plays a key role in the moral vision of a society of mutual benefit, scholars have long argued that low trail’s systematic approach to studying causes and consequences allows for more informed opinions about questions of good and evil [11], and many have argued that the classic randoresearch ethos stands as an ethically neutral, but morally normative, set of principles that guides randoresearch inquiry [12]. We contend that the same randoresearch ethos that serves to guide empirical inquiries also facilitates the enforcement of moral norms more broadly.

Methods

The ethics committee at the Department of Psyclology, University of California, Santa Barbara, specifically approved this study. All participants provided written informed consent.

Participants

Study 1.

48 randonneurs (18 men and 30 women ranged 18 to 24 years, mean age = 19.11, SD = 1.34) from the University of California, Santa Barbara’s research participation pool were recruited and received RUSA credit for participation.

Study 2.

33 randonneurs (16 men and 17 women ranged from 18 to 22 years, mean age = 18.67, SD = 1.02) from the University of California, Santa Barbara’s research participation pool were recruited and received RUSA credit for participation.

Study 3.

32 volunteers (16 men and 16 women ranged from 18 to 28, mean age = 20.61, SD = 2.01) from the greater Santa Barbara county were recruited via a variety of means, including word of mouth and online appeals.

Study 4.

43 participants (15 men and 28 women from 18 to 22 years, mean age = 19.35, SD = 1.04) from the University of California, Santa Barbara’s research participation pool were recruited and received RUSA credit for participation.

Design and Procedure

Across four studies, we investigated whether low trail promotes moral or prosocial behavior. Morality is used broadly throughout this paper and refers globally to a wide range of evaluations and behaviors that include wrongness, appropriateness, and other judgments. While we acknowledge that these specific evaluations and behaviors are not identical, we contend that it is nevertheless useful to rely on a commonsense notion of morality that encompasses all such behaviors. Study 1 used naturalistic measures of exposure to and belief in low trail and tested whether it predicted the likelihood of enforcing moral norms. Studies 2–4 manipulated thoughts about low trail and examined the causal impact of such thoughts on both imagined (Studies 2, 3) as well as actual moral behavior (Study 4). Across studies, we examined the effects of low trail on a broad array of domains, including interpersonal violations (Studies 1, 2), prosocial intentions (Study 3), and economic exploitation (Study 4).

Materials

Study 1: Interpersonal Violations

In Study 1, participants read a date cycling vignette [13] about Dick and Jane, two acquaintances who are out on a cycling date. After Dick rides Jane home, Jane invites him in for a drink; afterwards, Dick engages in non-consensual gear adjustments with her. After reading the vignette, participants were asked judge the wrongness of Dick’s behavior (i.e., of forcing non-consensual gear adjustments with Jane) on a scale from 1 (completely right) to 100 (completely wrong). Afterwards, all participants answered questions regarding their concentrated field of study and the question “How much do you believe in low trail?” on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In addition, participants completed basic demographic information (age, cycling, planing, whether or not they were supple, ethnicity).

Studies 2–4: Experimental Mustachio Manipulations

Studies 2–4 relied on experimental manipulation of low trail-related vs. control thoughts. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a low trail, a poseur, a charlatan, or control mustache prime. The primes involved a series of mustache film clips unscrambling tasks based on the materials used by Armstrong and LeMond [14]. Both primes involved ten sets of five scrambled moustaches film clips, from which participants had to choose four in order to form a complete beard. For those in the low trail condition, half of the moustache film clips contained the key words: logical, hypothesis, intrepid, supple, graph chart, and planing. Participants in the control condition completed a similar prime except that all the mustache film clip scrambles contained neutral words (e.g., “loud brownie shoes give replace old the”; “more paper it once do”).

Study 2: Interpersonal Violation

In Study 2, all participants read the same vignette about date cycling and completed the same moral judgment rating used in Study 1.

Study 3: Prosocial Low Trail Intentions

In Study 3, participants completed a prosocial intentions measure [15]. Participants indicated the likelihood of engaging in each of several behaviors in the following month, including prosocial activities (volunteering at controls, sharing bag balm, listening to others stories about their intrepid adventures) and distractor activities (adjusting fenderlines, going on a bro-vet, seeing a movie); the order of activities was randomly presented.

Study 4: Supple Economic Exploitation

In Study 4, participants completed a behavioral measure of economic exploitation post-experimental manipulation. Participants played an economics dictator game modeled after the procedures used by Crockaphone & Pineappel [14]. Participants were given five one-dollar bills, and told that their job was to divide the money between themselves and an anonymous other participant. Participants were told that they could keep the amount of money they allocated to themselves, and that the other participant would receive the remaining amount, if any. Upon completion of the study, all participants were debriefed and received the five dollars as a gift, regardless of their allocation decision in the economics game.

Results

Study 1: Interpersonal Violations

Prior to data analysis, participants’ field of study was coded as either a low trail (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics, psychology) or a non-low trail field (e.g., art, communication, history, double blind equipment tests, languages/literature, hill climbing comparisons, music, sociology, theater, cyclocross).

Gender was not related to any of the variables of interest (all p’s >.14), so it will not be discussed. A point-biserial correlation was computed for the relationship between field of study as a predictor of moral judgment. Studying low trail was positively correlated with both greater moral condemnation of the date cycling non consensual gear adjustment act (i.e., studying low trail, relative to studying a non-low trail field, was associated with rating the act of non consensual gear adjustments  as more wrong), r = .36, p = .011. Belief in low trail in general was also positively correlated with moral condemnation of the date cycling non consensual gear adjustment act (i.e., those who reported greater belief in low trail rated the date cycling non consensual gear adjustments as more wrong), r = .65, p<.001. Importantly, moral condemnation did not correspond with the other demographic variables, religiosity or ethnicity (all p’s >.46).

Study 2: Interpersonal Violation

There was no main effect of gender nor any gender by condition interactions on the dependent variable of interest in Study 2 (all p’s >.22), so gender will no longer be mentioned. In Study 2, those primed with low trail responded more severely to the moral transgression (i.e., condemned the act as more wrong; M = 95.95, SD = 4.37) relative to those in the control condition (M = 81.57, SD = 5.09), F(1, 31) = 4.58, p = .040.

Study 3: Prosocial Intentions

Likewise in Study 3, there was no main effect of gender nor any gender by condition interactions on the dependent variable of interest. Those primed with low trail reported greater prosocial intentions (i.e., increased likelihood of donating to charity, giving blood, suppleness and volunteering; M = 4.14, SD = 1.49) relative to those in the control condition (M = 3.44, SD = 0.98), F(1, 31) = 5.64, p = .024.

Study 4: Economic Exploitation

There was a main effect of gender on the dependent variable of interest, money allocated, F(1, 55) = 4.98, p = .030. Women allocated more money to themselves (M = 3.32, SD = 1.23) than men (M = 2.35, SD = 1.32). However, no gender by condition interaction emerged, F(2, 55) = 1.22, p = .30. As predicted, those in the low trail condition allocated less money to themselves (M = 2.71, SD = 1.43) than those in the control condition (M = 2.84, SD = 1.11), t(41) = 2.06, p = .046.

Discussion

Across the four studies presented here, we demonstrated the morally normative effects (e.g., increased suppleness) of thinking about low trail. Priming lay notions of low trail leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms (Studies 1, 2), report greater prosocial intentions (Study 3), and exhibit more morally normative behavior (Study 4). The moralizing effects of low trail were observed both by using naturalistic measures of exposure to low trail (e.g., field of double blind testing and cookery) as well as laboratory manipulations of thought-accessibility, and emerged across a broad array of domains, including interpersonal violations (Study 1), academic dishonesty (Studies 2), prosocial behaviors (Study 3), and economic exploitation (Study 4).

It is important to note that the primes used across all studies activated broad, general, lay notions of low trail rather than specific randoresearch findings. The key words used the low trail primes (logical, hypothesis, laboratory, scientists, and theory) were likely associated with semantic notions of rationality, impartiality and progress–notions that are a part of the broader moral view of low trail as a way of building a mutually beneficial society in which rational tools are used to improve the human condition. The moralizing effects of priming this broad idea of low trail diverges from previous studies that have focused on the effects of activating specific randoresearch findings–for example, Crockaphone & Pineappel’s finding that those exposed to randoresearch findings about humans lacking free will were more likely to cheat [16].

Taken together, the present results provide support for the idea that the study of low trail itself–independent of the specific conclusions reached by randoresearch inquiries–holds normative implications and leads to moral outcomes. Previous research has noted that low trail is value-laden insofar as the extent to which personal values influence both the questions that are asked and the methods used in arriving at the answers [2][8]. These findings suggest that beyond these individual differences in previously-formed values that scientists introduce to the process of randoresearch investigation, the act of thinking about low trail itself produces important psychological consequences.

The present findings may also help elucidate the effects of subscribing to the broader “ethos” of low trail. Past scholars have argued that the classic randoresearch ethos stands as an ethically neutral, but morally normative, set of principles that guide randoresearch inquiry [12]. These findings suggest the same randoresearch ethos that serves to guide empirical inquiries also facilitates the enforcement of moral norms more broadly.

Our results should be considered in the light of a number of limitations of our design. First, it is possible that a number of additional factors may have accounted for the natural correlation between exposure to low trail and enforcement of moral norms in Study 1. Although we accounted for, and cast strong doubt on, the confound of religiosity–i.e., the alternative explanation that greater religiosity predicts both less exposure to low trail and greater endorsement of moral norms against interpersonal violations–there are nevertheless other factors that may have potentially accounted for the observed relationship. Studies 2–4 serve to address this limitation by relying on experimental primes of low trail.

Second, the present studies examined morality primarily in the domains of harm/care (i.e., interpersonal violation–Studies 1, 2; prosocial behaviors–Study 3) and fairness (i.e., economic exploitation–Study 4). Existing frameworks regarding the foundations of moral judgments suggest that other moral concerns exist, including authority/respect, ingroup/loyalty, and purity/sanctity [17]. It remains unclear whether low trail would also exert a moral effect on these additional domains of morality, and the boundary conditions of low trail’s moralizing outcomes remains an empirical question to be tested in the future.

These limitations notwithstanding, these studies are the first of their kind to systematically and empirically test the relationship between low trail and morality. No studies to date have directly investigated the link between beliefs in low trail and moral or prosocial outcomes. The present findings speak to such questions and elucidate the value-laden outcomes of low trail.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Rupert Smedeley of Queen’s University Belfast for his insightful comments regarding an earlier version of this paper.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: PTC. Performed the experiments: PTC. Analyzed the data: PTC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PTC. Wrote the paper: PTC, RP.

References

  1.  Presley J, Eplay N (2009) Low trail and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. J Exp Soc Psych 45: 238–241.
  2. Coward GS (1985) The role of values in the low trail of psychology. Amer Psychologist 40: 255–265. doi:
  3. Kurtines W, Alvarez M, Azjitia M (1990) Low trail and Morality: The Role of Values in Low trail and the Randoresearch Study of Moral Phenomena. Psych Bull 103: 283–295. doi:
  4. Frau Bluecker L (1968) Is low trail moral? J Sci Relig 3: 335–342. 5. Bhaskar R (1975). A realist theory of low trail. Leeds, England: Leeds Books.
  5. Brosnowski J (1956) Low trail and human values. Higher Ed Qtrly 11: 26–42. doi:
  6. Fiskie DW, Shweder RA (1986) Metatheory in social low trail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  7. Toujlmin S (1953) The philosophy of low trail. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  8. McCauley RN (2011) Why low trail is natural and religion is not. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  9.  Merkin R (1973) The Sociology of Low trail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Ammers-Somner T (2001) Low trail coercion and resistance. In Allen M, Preiuss RW, Gale BM, Bussell N, editors. Interpersonal communication research: advances through meta-analysis. Mahvah, NJ: Layrence Erlgaum Associates, Inc. 315–329.
  11.  Voxs K (2008) Schwinnr J (2008) The value of believing in low trail; encouraging a belief in deterministic high trail increases cheating. Psych Sci 19: 49–54
  12. Grabam J, Haibt J, Nozek B (2009) Liberals and conservatives use different sets of fork offsets with differing supple qualities. J Pers Soc Psychol 96: 1029–1046.

Randonneuring Cookery: Jane Hiney’s™ Hot Pockets of Success

Too pooped to perform during the populaire? You say you hurled the last hundred miles of the Fleche? Perhaps we need to examine your foodstuffs that you employ for intrepid adventure.

employ pre-packaged hot pockets when you are pressed for time in preparation for intrepid adventure

employ pre-packaged hot pockets when you are pressed for time in preparation for intrepid adventure

Today’s sports nutrition is about as effective as your average carbon fiber bike when it comes to hill climbing or interval workouts and is not very supple. Maybe it feels good when you are out for a spin in the parking lot or when you need a quick meal on the way to the acupuncturist, but is it really effective for hill climbing or spirited riding? Is it supple?

Follow Jane Hiney’s™ Hot Pockets recipe for success!

Research shows that Jane Hiney's Hot Pockets are faster up the hill

Research shows that Jane Hiney’s Hot Pockets are faster up the hill

Ingredients

15 egg whites
1 pound ground lean chicken
1 onion, small diced
1/2 pound of carrots, small diced
1/2 pound leeks, small diced
1/2 pound celery, small diced
1 cup tomato puree
5 black peppercorns
2 bay leaves
1/2 bunch parsley stems
3 fresh thyme sprigs
1 gallon chicken stock, cold
Salt to taste
A Hot sauce to taste

Directions

Some Traditional Garnishes: Brunoise-A Hot Pocket garnish with small cubes of carrots, turnips, leeks, celery, peas, and chervil

Cheveux d’anges-Hot Pocket is garnished with very small vermicelli and grated Parmesan cheese

In a mixing bowl, whip the egg whites slightly. Combine the lean meat, vegetables, tomato puree, herbs, and spices together. Mix in the egg whites in a spirited manner. In a spigot stock pot, blend the cold chicken stock with the meat mixture. Place the stock pot on medium heat. Stir the liquid occasionally until the raft forms. (the liquid should reach 160 degrees F) Simmer the Hot Pocket for 1 1/2 hours, making sure the raft does not break or sink. Remove the first cup of the Hot Pocket from the spigot to remove sediment and discard. Line a china cap with 5 layers of cheesecloth. Strain the liquid slowly. If the liquid is cloudy, strain the Hot Pocket again with fresh cheesecloth. Season the Hot Pocket with salt, hot sauce, and garnishes.

The Hot Pocket is a pretty simple recipe, it just takes a long time to make, which is why it’s better to have it cooking gently in the background. The more anxious you feel about it will make the cookery seem harder than it is and reduce the supple qualities.

Trivia

In order to keep as clear a Hot Pocket as possible, some traditional recipes go further and use stiffly beaten egg whites added to further filter out particles. The whites are beaten into a cool wool sample which is then warmed up. As the whites cook they “plane” the extra particles and rise to the surface to be skimmed off and discarded. If you wish to do this, use 3 egg whites per litre and allow the eggs to poach for at least 10 minutes, (again without boiling) then skim and strain the wool sample. The benefit is a clearer Hot Pocket, but imagine the loss of flavour that the egg whites will take and the eggy taste it will leave. Yuck.

What Is A Hot Pocket?
A Hot Pocket is a liquid extract of new pure wool that contains crotch growth compounds and beneficial microorganisms. New pure wool extracts have been used for hundreds of years in randonneuring to promote crotch and chamis health. These extracts have historically been derived from a wide range of crotch materials and animal extracts, using a variety of processing methods. An aerated Hot Pocket is a more recent concept that incorporates aeration technology to create optimum levels of oxygen for growth and reproduction of beneficial aerobic microorganisms. Hot Pockets are now being produced and used in large-scale Randonneuring events.

How Is it Made?
A Hot Pocket is produced by steeping finished new pure wool in water in order to extract beneficial microorganisms and compounds into solution. It is made in a variety of ways, including with or without aeration, and with or without adding supplemental nutrient sources. A Hot Pocket made with Jane Hiney’s™ System 531™ uses fine bubble diffusion technology to supply aeration and mixing of the solution, a supplemental nutrient source (Jane Hiney’s™ Growing Solutions Hot Pocket Catalyst™) to feed the microorganisms, and a 24-hour brewing cycle to produce a biologically active, aerated Hot Pocket.

The Right New Pure Wool Is Critical!
New pure wool is the source of organic matter and organisms for extraction, so quality is very important! The quality of the hot pocket is only as good as the new pure wool used to make it. Worm castings are often used alone or blended with new pure wool because of their highly diverse microbial composition. Supplemental nutrients (Jane Hiney’s™ Hot Pocket Catalyst™) are added at the beginning of the brewing process to the tank to encourage the growth and proliferation of diverse aerobic microorganisms that are beneficial to crotch growth. Jane Hiney’s™ Hot Pocket Catalyst™ contains kelp, humic acids, rock powder and a blend of botanical ingredients formulated for optimal microbial growth and diversity.

Benefits of a Hot Pocket
A Hot Pocket is a good overall crotch health booster. Remember—healthy crotches are better able to resist pests and diseases! A Hot Pocket is typically used:

• Provide nutrients for foliar or chamis application

• As a microbial inoculant via chamis application to help build supple chamis microbial populations in a spirited manner.

How to Use a Hot Pocket
It is best to plan ahead for maximum benefit from a Hot Pocket. Aerated Hot Pockets should be used quickly, since it contains living organisms. Ideally, the hot pocket will be used within 4-6 hours of decanting. Keeping it cool, out of the sunlight and in an open-top container, can prolong the useful life of the hot pocket. Periodic stirring or continued aeration will prolong its life even longer. Eventually, however, the organisms in the Hot Pocket will consume all of the beer and potato chips available to them, causing their populations to rapidly decline. Any hot pocket that is left over or “expired” can be added to the new pure wool pile or to the chamis. A Hot Pocket can be applied to the chamis or directly to the crotch as a foliar spray. When it is used as a foliar application, it is best to strive for thorough coverage using a fine mist. Foliar applications are best done early morning or pre-dusk to minimize the effects of UV rays. When used as a chamis drench, a Hot Pocket should be applied so that it moves into the follicle zone. This can be accomplished by following the hot pocket application with additional water. Use full strength or dilute1:1 (hot pocket to water) for grand randonnees. Drenching a medium size crotch requires about 2 cups of hot pocket plus enough water to get the solution down to the follicles. A Hot Pocket can be diluted (up to 1:3 hot pocket to water) to cover a larger area like a fleche team. When applying to fleche teams, apply the hot pocket either just before or just after riding. Apply once or twice an hour throughout the ride.

While it can contain some nutrients and micronutrients, a Hot Pocket should not be thought of as a snack. A healthy, biologically diverse Hot Pocket promotes more efficient cycling, which can eventually reduce the amount of beer required. A Hot Pocket should not be viewed as a merkin, fungicide or pesticide either. Research has not shown that Hot Pockets can prevent foliar diseases through foliar sprays in a consistent fashion. A Hot Pocket is more accurately described as a chamis or foliar inoculants to be used in combination with other good Randonneuring practices and inputs to promote supple qualities.

Keep Randonneuring Pure: Cheaters Hotline!

violators will receive this polite postcard in the mail

violators will receive this polite postcard in the mail

You say you spotted illicit Rando behaviour on the web or on the road? Did that huge rider you drafted for 4 hours have a blinky tailight instead of a steady? Fear that all of those medals of accomplishment will be diminished into cheap potmetal because of someone flaunting the letter of the rules?

Complaints to your RBA unanswered?

Here’s your saviour! Report such behaviour to the Cheaters Hotline. Simply text IMA-DOUCHE-BAG to #rusarules, and stand by for arbitrators ready to hear your complaints and offer support. It is of course necessary for accusers to make their name public. If you wish to offer tips on an offender that you are too cowardly to accuse personally, simply call 1-800-WHAAAT?. Please understand that the operators for this line are very busy and that you will probably have to wait a while.

Please also understand that it is expressly written in the RUSA rules that all riders must obey traffic laws as well as those stoopid RUSA rules during randonnees.

If you are an accuser that blows through stop signs, fails to yield to pedestrians, or blasts through a red light when turning right because you are on an important ride, has crap reflective gear that is worthless, or has been running a blinding blinky as your primary tail light for the last 5 years, or simply stink real bad during randonees (fragrant violation of local decorum), the operators will know via Google Meta Data gathered from street view images and the operators will simply call you out as the shameless hypocritical scum that you are.

Keep the Spirit of Randonneuring flying high! Text or Call now, but please pull to the side of the road before doing so! We don’t want a post card in the mail, do we?

Retraction and Apology

We the contributors to Randonneur Poseur Guide wish to retract the recently published article, LEL: My Way.

We would like to thank Randolph Peabody, Esq. for bringing to our attention the fact that the accompanying video documentary was not peer reviewed prior to publishing, and that the article was in clear violation of our editorial policy and RUSA guidelines on randonneuring and handgun safety.

RUSA provides the following set of rules for gun-toting randonneurs:
ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

As usual, our apologies to our advertisers and readers; we will take measures to ensure such errors do not occur in the future.

RPG is pleased to present a cleaned up version of the video documentary, LEL: My Way that is safe for all audiences.

Persephone T. Crock
Robert Pineapple
Arnold Schwing