Discussion: why no sprints? ans: a) I don'...

why no sprints? ans: a) I don't much like sprints; b) I was in Houston.

Yeah, i realized you were in Houston right after i wrote the comment. Oops!!!

Yeah, but the choice of this weekend to go to Houston was partly dictated by the fact the the relevant event being missed was sprints. Though I'll give j-man and Randy some kudos - the courses were really outstanding.

so the ranking is sprints < wife < classic? Good to know where I stand :)

no, 'wife' is coming to most of the orienteering events I'm going to this fall (CNYO, DVOA), so the only ranking you can deduce is wife + classic > sprints. But since classic > sprints already, this gives only the information that wife > sprints - classic, and since sprints - classic < 0, this isn't too informative.

more importantly, you have to make a marginal calculation. for example, the marginal benefit from going to the North American champs is greater than that of visiting you in Houston on a weekend you're busy, when in addition there are many other weekends when the NAOCs are not on and when you are not busy...

maybe Boris' log isn't the place for this discussion...

I'm sure Boris doesn't mind. And you've left out the "new state" maringal benefit - sprints in new state > wife in some cases, I imagine. But if we are doing this in an Optimality Theory-type system rankings aren't contextual (at least in classic OT, and I don't think they've invented sprint OT yet).

nerds.