hockey requires the most skills of the heavy contact sports and
equipment has vastly improved for some of the more risky sports. There
is a risk of injury in most sports, Name a sport that has no risk or
injuries.//Yes- the cost of sporting equipment is high and so is the
committment and support.//Soccer doesn't do it for me but two children
played- just looks like an exhausting run back and forth= heat
stroke.// Girls are into ice hockey here- I figure skated=different
eras. Now they snowboard- I skied.//Anyway, kids can be injured at a
park on a jungle gym or a bad dive at a pool,etc. Actually, kids put
one on alert 24/7! What about teens driving or on drugs? Or couch
potatoes that turn diabetic and obese?
On Jul 30, 3:41 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> grew p with it,, never thought much of it..just a waste of time.. See
> absolutely nothing in baseball am still trying to figure out why people
> watch it..Ice hockey I am just not into violence..
>
> Soccer playing soccer to avoid injuries, maybe fewer.. parents
> can afford the safety equipment.. and shows far better sportsmanship and
> team work a far greater level of physical conditioning.. To put children in
> to they can be physically hurt with injuries that of their at will last them
> the rest of their lives,
> Allan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do think football has become the "national pastime" for many but
> > don't count out baseball or ice hockey. Many parents are turning to
> > soccer to avoid injuries so that will blossom. It's all good.
>
> > On Jul 30, 1:29 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I grew up with American football,
>
> > > Allan
>
> > > On 29 jul. 2011, at 15:24, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Most of the boys who played football are pretty beat up as they aged-
> > > > they need new knees, shoulders, etc. Well, anything to smother male
> > > > aggression is a plus- versus the injuries/deaths of wars.
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 6:55 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I played both Para. Still have the odd 20 over swipe at cricket. I
> > > >> played rugby before it got to be so much of a war of attrition. The
> > > >> toughest physical aspect was often resisting cold rain and wind.
> > > >> My guess on science for many years has been that people doing it have
> > > >> abilities in observation, patience, language and maths others lack.
> > > >> Words and concepts don't work well with most, just habit. Something
> > > >> else is at work but we don't seem to have contact with it. Beyond
> > > >> that I don't know but suspect 'knowing stuff certainly" is a major way
> > > >> through which many are convinced by people hooked on being credible
> > > >> and convincing.
>
> > > >> On Jul 27, 4:42 pm, 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.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend
> > to much
> > > >>>>>>>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner
> > reliance' in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching
> > my old
> > > >>>>>>>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan
> > have
> > > >>>>>>>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality
> > makes
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one
> > side
> > > >>>>>>>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born
> > with equal
> > > >>>>>>>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of
> > equality that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality
> > involved
> > > >>>>>>>>>> that does.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses
> > we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the
> > stuff we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> come out with trying to explain
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment