I played at a 'tidal club' Para - as far from the sea as you can get
in England, but tidal nonetheless. Very hard to describe the 'tidal'
conditions, but it would all start with the kind of rip-snorter Swanny
got in the current Test. When I was still young enough to bowl chin
music we'd have the other side's batsmen remembering urgent
appointments and driving off without taking their turn. The trick at
these times was to bowl slower and just let the pitch spit the ball at
the poor sod batting. When batting you had to give up playing forward
and only play square of the wicket to get runs - the game was turned
upsidedown. We beat a few county sides on that track thanks to the
'tide'. The tide seemed to be inspired by using the heavy roller at
tea. Great days. We won a championship on the last day on a tide
pitch after the opposition were 72 for none chasing 80 to win.
On Jul 31, 9:06 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sold! I'll take them all! Lol.
>
> On Jul 31, 8:35 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There's a lingerie football league and beach volley ball, etc.
> > Seriously, sports are often a ballet of form and extraordinary display
> > of what the body/mind is capable of. It's real- versus paintings or
> > statues of nudes at a museum. And the horses! :-)
>
> > On Jul 30, 7:31 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Err, yeah...might depend on the sport in my case, rigsy :)
>
> > > On Jul 30, 8:31 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Also football uniforms. Well, we are admiring bodies and physiques in
> > > > sports, aren't we? :-)
>
> > > > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I've always thought that baseball players have an interesting sense of
> > > > > dress style, rigsy; somewhat "hugging"? :)
>
> > > > > On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We have baseball. :-)
>
> > > > > > On Jul 28, 4:42 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Lol. Yeah, i've seen some innovation in rugby, for sure.
>
> > > > > > > Well, cricket is one sport that i am passionate about (at least as far
> > > > > > > as i can be passionate about sport). It's at once a game of supreme
> > > > > > > patience and incredible reaction speed. You have the batsman who, with
> > > > > > > the right "guard" and standing perfectly motionless, is practically
> > > > > > > impenetrable, against a bowler and 10 strategically placed teammates
> > > > > > > who patiently and cleverly induce the batsman to make a "false" stroke
> > > > > > > with ever so subtle changes in the speed, flight, movement, trajectory
> > > > > > > and/or spin of the ball. When it happens, it can be a beautiful
> > > > > > > thing :)
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 28, 7:23 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Until I came to Europe I never was a fan of any sport, since I have become a fan of rugby ,, ever since I watched a man fall on the ball with the other team piled on top. But his legs were sticking out of the pile. So his mates (6) grabbed his legs and used him like a wheel barrow. As for cricket,, I have never gotten it wrapped around my mind.
> > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > On 27 jul. 2011, at 17:42, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less
> > > > > > > > > "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for sure.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that
> > > > > > > > > physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking
> > > > > > > > > point :)
>
> > > > > > > > > Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :)
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 5:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting
> > > > > > > > >> Relativity as 'new physics' always was. I did my dancing on the rugby
> > > > > > > > >> field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy! Chemistry is more my
> > > > > > > > >> line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is
> > > > > > > > >> wonky. I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to
> > > > > > > > >> enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much. Thus they
> > > > > > > > >> remain prey to the Old One. Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old
> > > > > > > > >> One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb. I
> > > > > > > > >> believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy.
> > > > > > > > >> There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from
> > > > > > > > >> the old Idols.
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>> Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in
> > > > > > > > >>> content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the winners/
> > > > > > > > >>> colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their stories/
> > > > > > > > >>> recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee".
> > > > > > > > >>> There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine,
> > > > > > > > >>> Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps readied
> > > > > > > > >>> them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is not
> > > > > > > > >>> always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which also
> > > > > > > > >>> inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit as
> > > > > > > > >>> a path to power.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> LOL. Yeah I am still here,
> > > > > > > > >>>> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on their own ..
> > > > > > > > >>>> Allan
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your
> > > > > > > > >>>>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one
> > > > > > > > >>>>> "heretic" here already...alan? :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the insights.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> get out more :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality;
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> optimistic, archytas :)
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
