Ellery Hanley was so good as an opponent in rugby league that the only strategy we could come up with to stop him was to try and get him to fight before the game. You'd lose the fight too as he was a magnificent physical specimen, but what was a week eating hospital food compared with getting him sent off for fighting and giving the rest of the team an even chance playing against mere mortals? He really was one of the few that good. I understand this kind of thing, but actually think it is better to lose than win like this. In cricket, the smiling grins on nearby fielders' faces may conceal very inappropriate comments about one's mother, parentage and genital warts - it's called 'sledging'. In its absence, one could get paranoid enough to think one was being subjected to the silent treatment or not considered good enough to warrant the effort! My fast bowling career (pitching) started with a captain who tossed me the ball, saying the game was lost but we might as well have the pleasure of killing a few of them. No one died, but with each of their batsmen greeted with whoops from my colleagues about washing the blood off the stretcher used to carry my victims from the field the previous week and how fast I'd bowl if anyone offered serious resistance, the job got done.
Such games bear comparison with internet flaming and the rest, but are remarkably non-violent (as most sportsmen are) and part of a 'crack', respect for rules and umpires. Yet they do reach boil over and almost all human history demonstrates much violence lurks under our manners. I can demonstrate ad hom in all academic discourses, hatred in the religions of peace, vile racism in Marx and I believe chronic fascist supremacy in all economics that is essentially and invisibly about a control fraud of staying ahead by beggaring neighbours. The silencing mechanisms, whether pathetic 'nasty child' or propaganda are remarkably efficient in preventing dialogue and peaceful resolution. In all this, there are people who would think me mad for countenancing WW1 did not start in 1914 and can't even name the countries that fought in the standard model and on which side. On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:24:47 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > "Your heart just breaks, that’s all. But you can’t judge or point fingers. > You just have to be lucky enough to find someone who appreciates you." > Audrey Hepburn. > > Never been much of a fighter or seen the need of it. I did have three > older brothers that always seemed to fight growing up so understand the > instinct to war. Think it has been an industrial machine in the US for way > too long, making money (a lot) for politicians (Dick Cheney.) I was always > good at the game of risk and understand the strategies of defense and > expansion. My dad was in WWII and scarred for life from it, passing very > early from health problems associated with his service. Conflict seems to > be addicting on small and large levels for those not interested in > resolution but focused on perpetuation. I guess I was looking more at the > warring behaviors of this group and hoping for insights from the more > insightful members. Neil seems to see it pretty clearly. Not sure what > resolution, if any, is possible. > > On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 6:03:10 PM UTC-4, facilitator wrote: >> >> Well Molly, that would be up to you. You asked the question about what >> war was good for. There were some responses in kind but little feedback. >> >> >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
