Gotta keep it from The Children

"Dan Evans" wrote in message ...
"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Dan Evans wrote:

*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by
that
*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during
the
*summer.

An active lot, aren't you?

Not really. There was (and I suppose there still is) 2 hours a week minimum
devoted to PE (Phyical Education) and it was (and I think it still is) a
compulsory subject, along with Maths, English Language and Religeous
Education - meaning that if those were the only 4 subjecta school taught,
then that was fine.

When you think about it, 2 hours a week isn't much

Football is a high-injury sport!

Rugby has its moments as well. A kid I was at school with broke his neck
(though it has to be said that is very rare for that to happen), and there
were several broken arms and legs a year, plus missing teeth, broken
noses/fingers/ribs etc

Dan


Rugby has its moments as well.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:13:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Hillary Israeli) wrote:

In ,
Dan Evans wrote:

*
*"CBI" wrote in message
...
*
* Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
*an
* organized game.
*
*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
*summer.

An active lot, aren't you?

It's the same in Australia. All school kids must do at least one
Physical Education lesson a week which varies depending on the
season, and all school kids must participate in organised sport for
1.5 hours every week - this can be a team sport against other
schools or stuff like ice-skating, social tennis etc depending on
the school.

Football is a high-injury sport! Honestly, the moms I know don't let their
kids play and there is a LOT of competition to get onto the team among
those whose moms DO let them play - there are way fewer spots than kids!
Kids often play touch football, but that's a different sort of thing.
Also, in gym class, kids often play soccer, basketball, volleyball,
sometimes tennis if the school has courts -- but no, not football, not in
my experience!

We play touch football in Australian public schools now due to
injuries but until I was 16 the proper tackle version was common.
Most kids can play the tackle version as a weekend sport if they or
their parents so choose.

--
Cheryl

DS#1 (Mar 99), DS#2 (Oct 00)
DD born 30 Jul 02

"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"silvasurfa" wrote in message
.. .
"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"silvasurfa" wrote in message
. ..
"abacus" wrote in message
om...
Or
am I still clueless about your opinion?

I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be
bothered
explaining. Remain clueless.

As you wish ma'am. If you don't feel your opinion is worth the bother
of further explaination, I wouldn't dream of contradicting you in that
regard. However, my experience is that when people grow impatient
and/or irritated at my persistent questions trying to understand their
opinions and beliefs, it's because I've come close to identifying some
irrational aspect of it they do not wish to examine any further
themselves.

It is mainly that I spend a good deal of my working day explaining to people
why they've left it too late to do anything about the legislation they are
griping about, and why therefore this means they are stuck with the decision
I must make under the legislation. Which often enough involves debts to the
government in the four figure range, and subsequent recovery of such debts.

You are right that this has caused me to somewhat irrational... however I
don't think I am irrational in my logic about the absolute pointlessness of
nitpicking with regards to the reasons why legislation was passed... instead
my irrationality is in my almost overwhelming desire to say to people
something along the lines of "did you pay attention when the law was being
considered? did you speak to your local representative? did you write a
letter to the newspaper? did you even give a toss that the law existed and
could affect people until it affected *you*? did you read the letter we sent
you a year ago explaining the new law? do you ever read anything or listen
to the news? do you deserve to live in a democracy? have you got the laws
you deserve?" So yeah, when I talk too much about legislation and ****wits
griping after the event, I get uncomfortably angry.


And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking
in
public
parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned
in
public
places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in
public
because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one
of
them.

Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.

The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their
pants
and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag
and
taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep
seated
feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
hygiene.


Ma'am, while your feelings regarding the matter may indeed be
deep-seated, they are hardly universal in the same way that feelings
about defecating in public are.

I'm sure at various stages in humanity's history we were more relaxed about
****ting in public, rats and their fleas, open sewers, blood spilling
everywhere, opiate addiction, spitting in the street, lice and bedbugs. We
got smart, and mortality and morbidity improved We are getting smarter about
tobacco.


Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't
going
to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.

Well, smoking doesn't bring cancer or gastroenteritis to mind for me.
Nor do I find breast-feeding icky or inappropriate. However, I can't
abide gum-chewing and don't permit it in my house. (An affectation my
children find quite irritating). My point is that different people
have different ideas about what is nauseating and disgusting.

But some things we all agree on. Smoking is heading to be one of those
things.

Now, I
must admit, that glad as I would be to see the habit of chewing gum
banished from our society, I can't imagine supporting laws against the
public display of that disgusting habit.

If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is
going to
clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ******
and
people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses,
or
indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the
stuff
can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to
****.
They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the ****
away
from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for
other
people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing
a
gun in public.


Thanks for giving your opinion. I disagree with the analogy, but I
think you have successfully communicated your opinion at this time.
One further question if you will permit it: Why on earth do you find
smoking so disturbing as to be the equivalent of pooping or pulling a
gun in public?

It causes death, sickness and disablement aplenty, some of it in damned
unpleasant ways. Why should anyone have to watch someone doing that to
themselves, or be put in a position where they are fearful the person is
doing it to them? Nicotine addicts can use patches (or gum tehehehe!)
instead if they simply must indulge their addictions in public. Or they can
organise to smoke in private.


Clearly, those analogies seem appropriate to you, though I think most
people in our society would consider smoking to be a much lower order
of offense.

That's changing.

Your reasons seem legimate for disliking the habit, but
don't seem reasonable to justify the intensity of your feelings
regarding the activity.

I didn't feel this way 10 years ago, but lose a few friends and relatives to
cancer and heart disease, and you start getting radicalised.

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...

We play touch football in Australian public schools now due to
injuries but until I was 16 the proper tackle version was common.
Most kids can play the tackle version as a weekend sport if they or
their parents so choose.

Is that Aussie rules football?

Dan

"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...

We play touch football in Australian public schools now due to
injuries but until I was 16 the proper tackle version was common.
Most kids can play the tackle version as a weekend sport if they or
their parents so choose.

Is that Aussie rules football?

Dan



Depends which Australian state you live in. We have 2 codes of rugby and
Aussie rules in different places in the country.

"silvasurfa" wrote in message
...

Depends which Australian state you live in. We have 2 codes of rugby

Like anywhere else civilised.

and
Aussie rules in different places in the country.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if Cheryl meant touch Aussie football or touch
Association football. I've heard of Association football variants where
tackling isn't allowed (bad on the ankles and knees in small kids
apparently).

Dan

On 4 Jul 2003 06:15:40 -0500, "Dan Evans"
wrote:

"Cheryl" wrote in message
.. .

We play touch football in Australian public schools now due to
injuries but until I was 16 the proper tackle version was common.
Most kids can play the tackle version as a weekend sport if they or
their parents so choose.

Is that Aussie rules football?

I think it's both. But I was referring to rugby league
specifically. Some school kid broke his back or neck in a tackle so
they banned tackling. Private schools still play proper rugby union
as a school team however.


--
Cheryl

DS#1 (Mar 99), DS#2 (Oct 00)
DD born 30 Jul 02

"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...
"silvasurfa" wrote in message
...

Depends which Australian state you live in. We have 2 codes of rugby

Like anywhere else civilised.

and
Aussie rules in different places in the country.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if Cheryl meant touch Aussie football or touch
Association football. I've heard of Association football variants where
tackling isn't allowed (bad on the ankles and knees in small kids
apparently).

how would it even be possible to play touch aussie rules? there's no
tackles.

at my school we played touch rugby league. i will never understand the point
of touch football. it's not exactly difficult to touch someone. ime you die
of the sheer boredom of it all before anything's been achieved.
kylie

"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...

how would it even be possible to play touch aussie rules? there's no
tackles.

I didn't know that. How do you get the ball from the opposing team then?
Shoot the guy with the ball and hope one of your guys is there to catch
it?

urg, it's my least favourite form of football so i doubt i'm qualified to
answer, but anyway. since it's basically a passing and kicking game, you go
for the ball, not the player. there are no tries nor any equivalent, so
while there is much opportunity for bleeding noses & whatnot, there is no
tackling. it's very high-scoring because the ball goes to the goals very
quickly. it's a very fast game, actually.

at my school we played touch rugby league.

Full on tackling here.

i will never understand the point
of touch football. it's not exactly difficult to touch someone. ime you
die
of the sheer boredom of it all before anything's been achieved.

Ditto

they should just play soccer instead, should they not.
kylie

"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...

I didn't know that. How do you get the ball from the opposing team then?
Shoot the guy with the ball and hope one of your guys is there to catch
it?

Here is a link with the rules....
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aboutthegame

Aussie rules is a limitted possession game. Most (but not all) of the rules
involving possession are covered under
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=law...icleid =39059