If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was 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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
"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. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|