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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"CBI" wrote in message ... You still don't get it. In the game you were playing there was no simulation fot he full contact and line blocking that occurs in football. The fatigue in football comes from making an all out effort pushing on a barely movable object for short bursts of time (for the linemen) or from crashing through a bunch of guys hitting you for 5 yards at a time (for backs). So you're saying that that didn't happen? Here's what happened. The challenge was made (by whom to whom, I don't recall) The US team got a book on rugby, and had one of our guys go up there to train them We got a book on American Football, and one of thier guys came to us. We played a match of American Football, to the rules/instruction we had received (we even had the padding/helmet etc) We played a match of Rugby, to the rules/instructions they had received (with *no* padding/helmet etc, which alarmed some of them). If you have so little faith in the quality of Amateur American Football, or if indeed the quality of amateur American Football is that bad, tough. Equally matched teams, in terms of level the respective game was played at, reulted in us winning. I can't see why similar result shouldn't happen with teams at a higher standard. Perhaps Shelly should tell us why the question was asked if the answer from my personal experience "couldn't have happened because of X Y and Z"? Amateur level against amateur level - seems a fair match to me. The level of athletes isn't the issue. Isn't to me either, but it seemed to be an issue with whoever it is that I followed up to. Playing rugby and then playing a sport more like rugby than football and comparing the results is not. Don't blame that American Football is nearly-but-not-the-same-as Rugby. Chances are you broke some of the rules. I'm assuming that the US version of a PTI is as knowledgable of the rules of American Football (Baseball, etc) as a British PTI is of the rules of Rubgy (Association Football, Cricket, Hockey etc) Dan |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
"silvasurfa" wrote in message . ..
"abacus" wrote in message om... Silvasurfa's saying that the act of the smoking is so dispictable that the justification (means) for banning it in a public park (end) is fine with her. She considers the means appropriate for the end. Toto is saying that even though she might dislike smoking, the justification used is not sufficient to ban it in a public park and fears that the justification of setting a bad example for children, if considered a legimate reason for banning an otherwise acceptable act, could be used quite extensively for many different things and that could be detrimental to the freedom of individuals in our society. If I've got this right, I agree with Toto. Any corrections? Ok, time to restate my opinion, because people ain't getting it. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Sorry, I don't get it, but I'll try to interpret your opinion again and see if I understand it better now. It doesn't matter *now* (and now is what we can do something about eh?) whether the law was passed for the children, the environment, or for little green men from the planet Mars.... the law is there, the law is now the status quo, and if you want change you have to present a case for the future being different, not a case for the past having played out differently. So slopping your argument up with discussion of why the law was passed in order to try to score points is just a cheap and pointless distraction (hence I guess the crosspost from alt.peeves rather than alt.i-can-do-something-about-this) ... and if you are actually trying to get change happening it will detract from your attempts. There isn't a law on the books that didn't involve someone at some stage in its creation presenting a specious argument, because that's pretty much how all our laws are made in democracies. I'm afraid this clarification has only made me more confused. If you really want to change something, to make the future different from the past, it's crucial to understand the *why*. If you don't care at all about the past, only the result, then the whole *ends justifying the means* argument is moot. Whatever has happened in the past is past, no point in discussing whether or not the means justified the end, the only question is where do we go from here. Kinda like the whole WMD justification for the war in Iraq. What difference does it make whether or not they really existed, or whether or not the intelligence saying they did was reliable. it sounds to me, if we applied your logic to that situation, like you're saying: Okay, they lied to us about WMD. So what? Leaders have been lying about why they wanted to go to war for as long as there has been war. Let's move on and figure out what we're going to do next"? Or am I still clueless about your opinion? 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. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand where you're coming from. 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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
"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. 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. 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. 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. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"Dan Evans" wrote in message ... This leaves me with two equally likely possible conclusions. One is that the guys you played were no more experienced football players than you were Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at school to some degree? Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in an organized game. Nearly all American males have probably played touch football (no where near the same sport) and "pick-up" games of basketball (which resembles the organized game fairly closely in basic skills). Playing on organized baseball teams is very popular for school aged kids. However, most communities do not have organized football teams below the high school level (although regional "pee wee" leagues are common) and only a relatively low fraction of the students play on those teams. -- CBI |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
In ,
Dan Evans wrote: * *Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at *school to some degree? Absolutely not. Only a select few make the teams, at least around here. The moms in my social circle (well, I'm talking about the now-grandmoms - the women who are my own mom's peers) pretty much actively campaigned against allowing their sons to play football, too - certainly none of my friends played. -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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. Dan |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
Dan Evans wrote in :
"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. I'll join you in being stunned. The games played at schools in the UK are the same as the games played by adults who do them for a living. The only difference is the size of the players and the skill level. Over here we have pub/work football teams and the like, played by groups of friends or colleagues against other people of a similar level. Ie by amateurs who maybe practise once a week. Does this mean that there is no equivalent in the US? (FWIW five-a-side football is another popular game for amateur competitions.) -- Penny Gaines UK mum to three |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta keep it from The Children
"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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Your reasons seem legimate for disliking the habit, but don't seem reasonable to justify the intensity of your feelings regarding the activity. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
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? 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! -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|