Wow Archytas, that must have been one heck of a strip...10 wickets in
8 balls...amazing.

I used to be a pace opener, with a late outswing starting at middle,
seaming just short of a length, four slips, a deep gully/point, and a
short square leg; my party trick was the shade slower, fuller, 1 late
inswinger of the over, just the trick for back foot raiders like
yourself :) Great days indeed...takes me back to a time when i was
just 12st or under :)



On Jul 31, 10:06 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I played at a 'tidal club' Para - as far from the sea as you can get
> in England, but tidal nonetheless.  Very hard to describe the 'tidal'
> conditions, but it would all start with the kind of rip-snorter Swanny
> got in the current Test.  When I was still young enough to bowl chin
> music we'd have the other side's batsmen remembering urgent
> appointments and driving off without taking their turn.  The trick at
> these times was to bowl slower and just let the pitch spit the ball at
> the poor sod batting.  When batting you had to give up playing forward
> and only play square of the wicket to get runs - the game was turned
> upsidedown.  We beat a few county sides on that track thanks to the
> 'tide'.  The tide seemed to be inspired by using the heavy roller at
> tea.  Great days.  We won a championship on the last day on a tide
> pitch after the opposition were 72 for none chasing 80 to win.
>
> On Jul 31, 9:06 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sold! I'll take them all! Lol.
>
> > On Jul 31, 8:35 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > There's a lingerie football league and beach volley ball, etc.
> > > Seriously, sports are often a ballet of form and extraordinary display
> > > of what the body/mind is capable of. It's real- versus paintings or
> > > statues of nudes at a museum. And the horses! :-)
>
> > > On Jul 30, 7:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Err, yeah...might depend on the sport in my case, rigsy :)
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 8:31 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Also football uniforms. Well, we are admiring bodies and physiques in
> > > > > sports, aren't we? :-)
>
> > > > > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I've always thought that baseball players have an interesting sense 
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > dress style, rigsy; somewhat "hugging"? :)
>
> > > > > > On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We have baseball. :-)
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 28, 4:42 am, 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to