LOL it is not my tactic I was channel hopping and it was on. I only watched for about twenty minutes (I developed an allergy to TV sports while growing up in the good old USA) that is what I saw or thought I saw, any way it put a smile on my face and makes for a great memory Allan
On 29 jul. 2011, at 02:02, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I always regarded cricket as a much more physical game than rugby, > though when young i opened the batting and bowling. Allan's tactic is > against the rules in league - he must have been watching union - or > maybe the Eton Wall Game!! I do think authority in science is > misunderstood, but don't disagree with you Para.Some work on just how > biased forensic scientists generally are is scary though. > > On Jul 28, 9:54 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well Allan, if you ever decide to go see a match, let me know; i'd be >> delighted :) >> >> On Jul 28, 9:15 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Someday I may have the honor of see a game hopefully with some one as >>> knowledgeable as you. >>> Allan >> >>> On 28 jul. 2011, at 11:42, paradox <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 this is dire. In epistemology >>>>>>>>>>>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve >>>>>>>>>>>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with >>>>>>>>>>>>> structured >>>>>>>>>>>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can >>>>>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this >>>>>>>>>>>>> sadly is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long >>>>>>>>>>>>> history >>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and >>>>>>>>>>>>> glow, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter in a larger sense of >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป
