keeping juggling serious
u3006...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net
If juggling is generally defined as: "more objects than throwing
hands", then why does IJA support stuff like diabolo etc. as
serious forms of juggling? There's a lot of toy games like yo-yo,
frisbee, kites etc. that certainly are forms of object manipulation,
but do to the limitations could hardly be considered juggling!
T.T.
--
Sent by greatergizmo from hotmail element from com
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
Dan Davies
<bashes head against the key board in frustration: yhulskdjks
dslsjkasajk> juggling isn't serious. evil person
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 u3006...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net wrote:
> I just thought of a thing:
>
> If juggling is generally defined as: "more objects than throwing
> hands", then why does IJA support stuff like diabolo etc. as
> serious forms of juggling? There's a lot of toy games like yo-yo,
> frisbee, kites etc. that certainly are forms of object manipulation,
> but do to the limitations could hardly be considered juggling!
>
> T.T.
i don't think you can say that you throw yoyos or kites and you don't
really manipulate a frisbee [unless you are doing contact moves in which
case i would say it was juggling]. but on the other hand if you were to
throw three frisbees then that would equal rings wouldn't it so you would
be juggling. unless it was between two people in which case it
wouldn't. unless they were only using one hand each in which case it
would. but that would make doing kick ups with a football juggling as you
aren't using your hands at all. so what about kicking a frisbee between
two people? or a football for that matter, just because it touches the
ground doesn't stop it from being juggling [remember bounce juggling]. so
is david beckham a juggler??? i shudder at the thought..........
cheers
Dan
an avid liverpool fan
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent by greatergizmo from hotmail element from com
> This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
> Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
>
Dan
Ray Stern
Dan Davies <cp...@city.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.01050...@217b3.city.ac.uk...
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
> <bashes head against the key board in frustration: yhulskdjks
> dslsjkasajk> juggling isn't serious. evil person
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 u3006...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net wrote:
>
> > I just thought of a thing:
> >
> > If juggling is generally defined as: "more objects than throwing
> > hands", then why does IJA support stuff like diabolo etc. as
> > serious forms of juggling? There's a lot of toy games like yo-yo,
> > frisbee, kites etc. that certainly are forms of object manipulation,
> > but do to the limitations could hardly be considered juggling!
> >
Juggling, I believe, is best defined as being all the things that jugglers
do that non-jugglers don't.
Ray
Jerry Carson
Juggling: Doing that which doesn't need to be done in the most difficult
way possible. :-)
Greg Phillips
> Juggling, I believe, is best defined as being all the things that jugglers
> do that non-jugglers don't.
Right. And I bet you define "jugglers" as "those who do juggling". Are
we trying to start a union? Start a fight? Forget the definitions
people, relax, and juggle.
Greg
.sig says: Three days to Cascadia.
Dan Davies
so does that mean staring at the wall, dribbling rocking back forth very
slowly and shouting "PENGUIN" at random points in a sentence is jug
PENGUIN gling? but, maybe that's just me.....
cheer PENGUIN s
Dan
Paul Selwood
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, Ray Stern wrote:
>> Juggling, I believe, is best defined as being all the things that jugglers
>> do that non-jugglers don't.
>>
> slowly and shouting "PENGUIN" at random points in a sentence is jug
> PENGUIN gling? but, maybe that's just me.....
> cheer PENGUIN s
Ah, how quickly we descend into personal takes on the philosophy of language!
Nominalist? Realist? Don't care and just want to juggle?
Thought so.
Paul
--
Paul Selwood
pa...@vimes.u-net.com http://www.vimes.u-net.com
Ray Stern
Paul Selwood <pa...@vimes.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:c87sc9...@vimes.u-net.com...
> Dan Davies <cp...@city.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 May 2001, Ray Stern wrote:
> >> Juggling, I believe, is best defined as being all the things that
jugglers
> >> do that non-jugglers don't.
> >>
> > so does that mean staring at the wall, dribbling rocking back forth very
> > slowly and shouting "PENGUIN" at random points in a sentence is jug
> > PENGUIN gling? but, maybe that's just me.....
> > cheer PENGUIN s
>
> Ah, how quickly we descend into personal takes on the philosophy of
language!
> Nominalist? Realist? Don't care and just want to juggle?
>
> Thought so.
Precisely. The juggling that can be defined is not the true juggling.
Dan Davies
RIGHT!!!!! you asked for this!!!!!!!!!
ok philosophy of language cretins guide short version:
a meaning of a word can take three forms:
refering to a mental concept. this the platonic view that language and
everything else we do refers to innate metaphysical concepts learnt before
we are born. for example when you say "horse" you have in your
unconscious mind a perfect image of a horse or formal horse which is a
generalisation of all factors of all horses. or you can take the
aristotleian root that this mental formal generalisation is built up
through you coming into contact with horses and you just abstract the
concept of horse from that. if you don't understand this read the
republic, in fact you should read the republic anyway :o)
refering to a physical concept. when you say horse you are simply refering
to that four legged winnying creature you saw the other day or to whom the
conversation refers to. eg "did you see that horse running in the field".
meaning is usage: the wittgenstein approach, meaning is based on how we
use words, we have a public based reference system of language. the
meaning of the word juggler depends soley on how it is used in the public
domain. this does of course mean that words can be used wrongly but all in
all it is a theory that works pretty well as words are used wrongly
regardless of any system.
yes i am studying philosophy does it show? [well for another month any way
then i graduate and am off to work in Mcdonalds.]
cheers
Dan
Ewano
> RIGHT!!!!! you asked for this!!!!!!!!!
[snip a load of shite about philosophy]
> then i graduate and am off to work in Mcdonalds.]
What a load of crap. Philosophers know nothing, they talk the talk but don't
walk the walk.
Ewano..
Dan Davies
> "Dan Davies" wrote:
>
> > RIGHT!!!!! you asked for this!!!!!!!!!
>
> [snip a load of shite about philosophy]
it wasn't meant to be ground breaking or life changing.
>
> > then i graduate and am off to work in Mcdonalds.]
>
> What a load of crap. Philosophers know nothing, they talk the talk but don't
> walk the walk.
>
> Ewano..
>
this coming from somebody who quotes zen???? :o)
ok is philosophy practical? no it isn't, the vast majority of people live
their lives in total ignaorance of the inner subtleties of Kantian
metaphysical epistemology [deliberate use of long words to prove a point,
don't worry about their meaning]. personally i enjoy philosophy in the
same way i enjoy, lets say, juggling. i do it for fun, there is very
little i enjoy better than a good argument with an intelligent person
[bring it on pal!!!!!!!!!!!!!]. all philosophy does is teaches you a very
precise way of thinking and analysing things that is actually of use in
life, especially when you want to answer some of life's more important
questions. invariably these questions do not have answers which are
universal, but there are always answers which will work for you. a
philosophical mind finds those answers for you, as a result you can walk
the walk of philosophy, just don't expect to be loaded with gold.
cheers
Dan
ball in your court mon ami :o)
Greg Phillips
> this coming from somebody who quotes zen???? :o)
You can't quote zen. He never said anything.
> ok is philosophy practical? no it isn't, [...]
> all philosophy does is teaches you a very
> precise way of thinking and analysing things that is
> actually of use in life
Which apparently includes not making self-contradictory statements.
Please take this to alt.pointless.discussions.by.people.who.
know.not.whereof.they.speak.
How 'bout that five ball cascade, eh?
Greg
.sig is off to Cascadia at 4:45 a.m. tomorrow. Greg will still be asleep
;^).
Dan Davies
> Dan Davies wrote:
> > this coming from somebody who quotes zen???? :o)
>
> You can't quote zen. He never said anything.
yes he did >
> > ok is philosophy practical? no it isn't, [...]
> > all philosophy does is teaches you a very
> > precise way of thinking and analysing things that is
> > actually of use in life
>
> Which apparently includes not making self-contradictory statements.
> Please take this to alt.pointless.discussions.by.people.who.
> know.not.whereof.they.speak.
sorry typing faster than i'm thinking [i was in a rush it was happy hour
at the student bar.... quid for a pint, lots of nurses hence i
wasn't really concentrating....] , it should have read essential for life
[which it isn't] but it can be practical
>
> How 'bout that five ball cascade, eh?
it's coming along quite nicely. thanks for asking :o)
cheers
Dan
>
> Greg
> .sig is off to Cascadia at 4:45 a.m. tomorrow. Greg will still be asleep
> ;^).
>
>
Dan