Can anyone translate this please?
Robert Bannister
throws in a spell, an incantation or aphorism in a foreign language. If
it's in Latin, even fake Latin, I can usually make some sense out of it.
Greek is harder; Gaelic impossible - but I always try.
In the book I have just finished, Caroline Stevermer gives me an
extended metaphor in which I do not understand more than the odd word. I
know it's not Ancient Egyptian or Sanskrit or Hittite, but it's foreign
to me - perhaps even more foreign than cricket would be to an American
reader. From "baseball" on, I am lost:
"Lambert ran as fast as he could through the maze. This was a pattern he
understood. He knew he had to stick to it, every step. It was part of
the game. Just as in baseball the infielders threw the ball around the
horn after a putout, each putout a different pattern but every pattern
counterclockwise; just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman,
was to touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher, this was
inevitable, a pattern he knew to the marrow of his bones."
['A Scholar of Magics' - Caroline Stevermer]
--
Robert Bannister
Andrew Plotkin
"Lambert knew where to go. It was as if he had practiced it."
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Kurt Busiek
She's describing a baseball ritual, one that follows rules but which
varies depending on where the ball ended up.
So she's saying it's familiar as ritual, but not an unvarying pattern.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Joel Olson
news:938mgu...@mid.individual.net...
Do they still do that? I'd think it something a local non-pro or semi-pro team
might do (showing off, basically), but that the big league teams would not
spend the energy on.
William December Starr
"Joel Olson" <joel....@cox.net> said:
> Do they still do that? I'd think it something a local non-pro or
> semi-pro team might do (showing off, basically), but that the big
> league teams would not spend the energy on.
At the top levels of play at least, it's not a "showing off" thing.
The activity and participation keeps the infielders who weren't
involved in the play just the tiniest bit more aware and sharp,
active and ready to move rather than deflated due to
inactivity/non-participation. At the highest level of the sport,
that can make a difference on the next play.
Likewise, if you watch a major league baseball game on tv you'll
notice that whenever a strikeout occurs and (1) it isn't the third
out and (2) there aren't any runners on base, the catcher will
immediately throw the ball to the third-baseman. The camera
probably won't follow the action, but the ball then gets thrown
around the infield until the first-baseman gets it, and he throws it
to the pitcher. Again, it keeps the infielders sharp.
-- wds
Kurt Busiek
Yeah, baseball players can stand around without being called on to act
for quite a while; keeping them limber and sharp is a good thing.
Were I a manager, I'd be tempted to decree that any time the third out
is a force-out at second, the players should "complete" the double
play, too. But I suppose the first baseman is the guy least likely to
need it.
Joel Olson
news:iqpded$76t$1...@dont-email.me...
And I suppose there is similar justification for the "chatter."
Which we also don't see on tv.
Dorothy J Heydt
Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout,
each putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
What's "around the horn"? What's a "putout"? You gentlemen seem
to understand exactly what Lambert is talking about, and you're
all going on about *why* it is done. How about explaining *what*
is done first, and then we can take *why* for granted.
I, for one, know less about baseball than I do about Sanskrit.
(I took a year of Sanskrit; it was reguired for my major. I have
not been required to pay any attention to baseball, or rather softball,
since sixth grade.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
William December Starr
"Joel Olson" <joel....@cox.net> said:
> And I suppose there is similar justification for the "chatter."
> Which we also don't see on tv.
I don't know first-hand since I haven't been to an actual major
league game in decades, but I've occasionally heard tv or radio
announcers of MLB games discussing/bemoaning that infield chatter
has become a thing of the past.
-- wds
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>"Lambert ran as fast as he could through the maze. This was a pattern he
>understood. He knew he had to stick to it, every step. It was part of
>the game. Just as in baseball the infielders threw the ball around the
>horn after a putout, each putout a different pattern but every pattern
>counterclockwise; just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman,
>was to touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher, this was
>inevitable, a pattern he knew to the marrow of his bones."
Lots of folks have provided the general sense, but nobody (so far) have
given you the exact pattern (or collection of patterns), in the interest of
beating a pile of dust that used to be a dead horse:
In baseball when there is a groundout to the infield and nobody is
currently on base: (necessary knowledge of baseball for understanding - if
a batter hits a ball on the ground and a fielder in possession of the ball
touches first base before the batter reaches it, the batter is out. While
not required by rules, there are typically 5 fielders covering the infield
(the area defined by the 4 bases), the pitcher, the 1st baseman, the 2nd
baseman, the shortsop, and the 3rd baseman)
When the groundball is fielded by
the pitcher throws to the 1st baseman for the out, who then thows to the
2nd basemen, who throws to the shortstop, who throws to the 3rd baseman who
returns the ball to the pitcher
the 1st baseman who makes the out, then throws to the 2nd basemen,
shortsop, 3rd baseman, returns to the pitcher
the 1st baseman, to pitcher makes the out, 2nd, short, 3rd, return to
pitcher
(when the ball is hit to the 1st base side of the infield, it's the
pitcher's responsibility to run to 1st base and cover in case the 1st
baseman has to go too far trying field the ball to get back)
the 2nd baseman to 1st makes the out, short, 3rd, back to picher
the 2nd baseman to pitcher makes the out, 1st, short, 3rd, back to pitcher
the shortstop to 1st makes the out, 2nd, 3rd, back to pitcher
the 3rd basement to 1st makes the out, 2nd, short, 3rd, back to pitcher
'around the horn' refers to any play that travels through 2nd base. Other
than all the above, a usage instance would be a groundball hit to the 3rd
baseman with a runner on 1st. 3rd throws to 2nd baseman for the out, who
throws to the 1st baseman for the 2nd out on the play. This is called an
'around the horn double play'.
And that's more baseball than you probably care about (I can also explain
the infield fly rule).
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Kurt Busiek
> In article <iqp9lp$hrn$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Likewise, if you watch a major league baseball game on tv you'll
>> notice that whenever a strikeout occurs and (1) it isn't the third
>> out and (2) there aren't any runners on base, the catcher will
>> immediately throw the ball to the third-baseman. The camera
>> probably won't follow the action, but the ball then gets thrown
>> around the infield until the first-baseman gets it, and he throws it
>> to the pitcher. Again, it keeps the infielders sharp.
>
> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
> infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout,
> each putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>
> What's "around the horn"? What's a "putout"?
Google is your friend.
> You gentlemen seem
> to understand exactly what Lambert is talking about, and you're
> all going on about *why* it is done. How about explaining *what*
> is done first, and then we can take *why* for granted.
How about looking it up, rather than berating other people for not
answering someone else's question in the manner you'd like?
If someone does explain that "around the horn" means "around the
infield," will it enrich your life? Or will you simply explain that you
don't care about baseball? Which is fine, but it's also why it isn't
going to matter much to you what "around the horn" means.
> I, for one, know less about baseball than I do about Sanskrit.
> (I took a year of Sanskrit; it was reguired for my major. I have
> not been required to pay any attention to baseball, or rather softball,
> since sixth grade.)
And you're just itching for another opportunity to explain why you
don't know or care, but really, we know that.
The original question was answered just fine -- it was a "what does it
mean in the context of the novel" question. If you want to understand
all the sports terms involved, you can look them up. If you want
someone else to explain them to you so that you can explain why you
don't really care, you're wasting their time, so why not just take it
as given?
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
> infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout, each
> putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>
> What's "around the horn"?
A sequential trip around the infield: first-baseman to
second-baseman to shortstop[1] to third-baseman, or the other way
around. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's also "around the horn"
when it starts at third base, but eh.)
*1: The shortstop is an infielder who plays between the second- and
third-basemen. I _think_ that in the very early days of the
game he played in the shallow -- "short" -- outfield behind
second base, but then people figured out that he'd be a lot
more useful defensively plugging a gap in the infield.
> What's a "putout"?
Generally, it's any time an out is made; a player on the batting
team is put out. (Each team gets three outs each time it comes up
to bat.) In the usage here, it seems to specifically refer to a
put-out that occurs at first base, as a strong plurality of all
put-outs do. The play ends with the first-baseman (or, less often,
a different player who ran over to cover the base because the
first-baseman had to go chase the batted ball) holding the ball, and
traditionally he -- if there are no other runners on base for the
defensive team to worry about -- throws the ball to the
second-baseman, who throws it to [...] to the third-baseman, who
either tosses the ball to the pitcher or walks over and hands it to
him.
-- wds
lal_truckee
>
>
> "Lambert ran as fast as he could through the maze. This was a pattern he
> understood. He knew he had to stick to it, every step. It was part of
> the game. Just as in baseball the infielders threw the ball around the
> horn after a putout, each putout a different pattern but every pattern
> counterclockwise; just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman,
> was to touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher, this was
> inevitable, a pattern he knew to the marrow of his bones."
Baseball is not important, merely the idea of a physical ritual:
It means there are unconscious ritualistic patterns with variations,
understood in your bones in a way that involves no decisions yet must be
executed exactly and immediately.
See _Rogue Moon_ for an alternative way through the maze story - one
that requires constant thought and vigilance to avoid horrible death and
disaster, driving men crazy except the protagonist who's already crazy.
Dorothy J Heydt
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
>> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
>> infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout, each
>> putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
>> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
>> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>>
>> What's "around the horn"?
>
>A sequential trip around the infield: first-baseman to
>second-baseman to shortstop[1] to third-baseman, or the other way
>around. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's also "around the horn"
>when it starts at third base, but eh.)
Okay ... do these guys RUN around the infield, or do they just
throw the ball to each other?
>> What's a "putout"?
>
>Generally, it's any time an out is made; a player on the batting
>team is put out. (Each team gets three outs each time it comes up
>to bat.) In the usage here, it seems to specifically refer to a
>put-out that occurs at first base, as a strong plurality of all
>put-outs do. The play ends with the first-baseman (or, less often,
>a different player who ran over to cover the base because the
>first-baseman had to go chase the batted ball) holding the ball, and
>traditionally he -- if there are no other runners on base for the
>defensive team to worry about -- throws the ball to the
>second-baseman, who throws it to [...] to the third-baseman, who
>either tosses the ball to the pitcher or walks over and hands it to
>him.
Okay. So they throw the ball to each other.
Jeepers.
David Johnston
> In article <iqp9lp$hr...@panix2.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wdst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <GLmdnVZjorlwnE3QnZ2dnUVZ_qmdn...@supernews.com>,
> >"Joel Olson" <joel.ol...@cox.net> said:
>
> >> Do they still do that? I'd think it something a local non-pro or
> >> semi-pro team might do (showing off, basically), but that the big
> >> league teams would not spend the energy on.
>
> >At the top levels of play at least, it's not a "showing off" thing.
> >The activity and participation keeps the infielders who weren't
> >involved in the play just the tiniest bit more aware and sharp,
> >active and ready to move rather than deflated due to
> >inactivity/non-participation. At the highest level of the sport,
> >that can make a difference on the next play.
>
> >Likewise, if you watch a major league baseball game on tv you'll
> >notice that whenever a strikeout occurs and (1) it isn't the third
> >out and (2) there aren't any runners on base, the catcher will
> >immediately throw the ball to the third-baseman. The camera
> >probably won't follow the action, but the ball then gets thrown
> >around the infield until the first-baseman gets it, and he throws it
> >to the pitcher. Again, it keeps the infielders sharp.
>
> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
> infielders
There are nine players on a baseball team. When a team is defending
(and the other team is batting) 3 of them are the "outfielders" who
stand out past the diamond and catch the balls that have been knocked
a long way. One of them is the pitcher who throws the ball. One of
them is the catcher who stands behind the batter to catch the ball if
the batter doesn't hit it. The rest are the infielders.
>threw the ball around the horn after a putout,
A "putout" is when one of the infielders manages to touch the ball to
one of the runners before he manages touch a foot to one of the bases,
"tagging" him to put him out of play.
Throwing the ball "around the horn" is a play in baseball in which you
first throw the ball to the third baseman, then he throws the ball to
the second baseman, then he throws the ball to the first baseman. As
I understand it you do it when you have a man each on first and second
bases, and the batter has just hit the ball. In that situation, the
runner on second base _must_ run to third base, and the runner on
first base must runt to second base and the batter must run to first
base. Therefore if you throw the ball to the third baseman and he can
"tag" the oncoming man, he can then throw the ball to second base and
the second baseman can tag the man who was on first and then if you
throw it to first you can tag the batter. Properly executed, this
play ends the "inning" for the opposed team, and gives the defending
team a chance to bat (and score points). It has to be done in that
order, counter clockwise, because the runners themselves are running
clockwise, and if you tag the batter first, that will give the other
two runners time to make to their next base.
> each putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
After the play is executed, the ball is thrown back to the third
baseman to finish it. The reason for this, is because the play may
not have gone perfectly and one of the runners may still be running.
If the ball wasn't thrown to the third baseman, then that would give
the runner a chance to run for another base or even home. Then once
the third baseman has determined that all the runners have stopped
running, he can throw the ball back to the pitcher so it can be thrown
by the pitcher for the next batter.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <iqpiem$cij$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <LL99y...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>
>>> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
>>> infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout, each
>>> putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
>>> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
>>> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>>>
>>> What's "around the horn"?
>>
>> A sequential trip around the infield: first-baseman to
>> second-baseman to shortstop[1] to third-baseman, or the other way
>> around. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's also "around the horn"
>> when it starts at third base, but eh.)
>
> Okay ... do these guys RUN around the infield, or do they just
> throw the ball to each other?
Dorothy wants to know, when baseball players "threw the ball around the
horn," were they throwing the ball, or running from place to place.
You'd think the words "threw the ball" would be a big honking clue.
>>> What's a "putout"?
>>
>> Generally, it's any time an out is made; a player on the batting
>> team is put out. (Each team gets three outs each time it comes up
>> to bat.) In the usage here, it seems to specifically refer to a
>> put-out that occurs at first base, as a strong plurality of all
>> put-outs do. The play ends with the first-baseman (or, less often,
>> a different player who ran over to cover the base because the
>> first-baseman had to go chase the batted ball) holding the ball, and
>> traditionally he -- if there are no other runners on base for the
>> defensive team to worry about -- throws the ball to the
>> second-baseman, who throws it to [...] to the third-baseman, who
>> either tosses the ball to the pitcher or walks over and hands it to
>> him.
>
> Okay. So they throw the ball to each other.
>
> Jeepers.
And sure enough, now that she's insisted that someone else explain to
her what the answer to someone else's question meant, it turns out she
doesn't care.
WE KNEW THAT, Dorothy. And frankly, so did you. Why you make such a
fuss about people not explaining things you don't care about to you
when they're answering other people questions is just freakin' bananas.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Starr) wrote:
I've just been reading through the first twenty years of the Complete
Peanuts collection, and they were complaining of the loss of infield
chatter in about 1958.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Joel Olson
news:c5096692-8317-4647...@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above is describing a "triple-play", which produces all three outs
in that single play, and requires opposing players on first and second
bases as the result of earlier plays.
It uses the rule that when the ball is hit, a runner must open first base
for the hitter, and safely reach the next base, i.e. before the baseman
can get the ball and step on the bag. If the baseman does that, the
runner is out, and if the baseman can then throw the ball to another
baseman (usually first base) who then can catch it before the runner
gets there, that runner is out too. A double play. Which they can
celebrate by throwing the ball around, instead of returning it directly
to the pitcher.
Throwing the ball around the horn takes place after a play has been
completed and before the pitcher starts the next one.
Kurt Busiek
> Throwing the ball around the horn takes place after a play has been
> completed and before the pitcher starts the next one.
Although a 5-4-3 double play is also called an "around the horn" double
play, because the ball goes from third to second to first.
Joel Olson
news:LL9C9...@kithrup.com...
> In article <iqpiem$cij$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <LL99y...@kithrup.com>,
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>
>>> Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
>>> infielders threw the ball around the horn after a putout, each
>>> putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
>>> just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
>>> touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>>>
>>> What's "around the horn"?
>>
>>A sequential trip around the infield: first-baseman to
>>second-baseman to shortstop[1] to third-baseman, or the other way
>>around. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's also "around the horn"
>>when it starts at third base, but eh.)
>
> Okay ... do these guys RUN around the infield, or do they just
> throw the ball to each other?
>
A "runner" is a member of the opposing team, the "at bat" team.
An infielder is a member of the defending team. Their function is to
defend the base whose name they carry, which they do by placing
themselves close to or on the bag as need be, to catch a ball or tag
a runner, or by being in a position to catch a struck ball headed
in their general direction. They more around to do these things,
running if needed.
Sometimes a struck ball will be going in a direction that pulls a
baseman away from his bag. In each such case, some specific
other player is supposed to move to replace him. For instance,
if the batter bunts the ball toward first base, and the first baseman
moves up to catch the ball, the pitcher is supposed to see this
happening and to run over to first base so he is in position to
catch the throw from the first baseman, step on the first base bag,
and thus make the out.
Robert Bannister
Thank you, Dorothy. I was beginning to wonder what everyone was talking
about.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around Cape Horn" and
that is what Google will tell me. As for "putting out", a nice girl
wouldn't.
Or will you simply explain that you
> don't care about baseball? Which is fine, but it's also why it isn't
> going to matter much to you what "around the horn" means.
>
>> I, for one, know less about baseball than I do about Sanskrit.
>> (I took a year of Sanskrit; it was reguired for my major. I have
>> not been required to pay any attention to baseball, or rather softball,
>> since sixth grade.)
>
> And you're just itching for another opportunity to explain why you don't
> know or care, but really, we know that.
>
> The original question was answered just fine -- it was a "what does it
> mean in the context of the novel" question. If you want to understand
> all the sports terms involved, you can look them up. If you want someone
> else to explain them to you so that you can explain why you don't really
> care, you're wasting their time, so why not just take it as given?
>
> kdb
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Thank you. That last part was more difficult to understand, but I get
the idea. How come "horn", though? Does anybody know? Does it just mean
'a long way round'?
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Thank you. This is an even better explanation because it shows why.
--
Robert Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Thank you, Dorothy. I was beginning to wonder what everyone was talking
>about.
You're welcome.
(See, you guys???? It isn't just me!)
Mary Shafer
Heydt) wrote:
> What's "around the horn"?
Going completely around the cockpit, checking all the instruments
before brake release. The pattern of the actual check is taught from
the beginning of flight training.
Mary "Yeah, they use it in baseball, too."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Brian M. Scott
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:93b9g6...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 16/05/11 5:54 AM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
[...]
>> If someone does explain that "around the horn" means
>> "around the infield," will it enrich your life?
> Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around
> Cape Horn" and that is what Google will tell me.
Not if you do the obvious and search on <"around the horn"
baseball>. Even without the 'baseball' the first return
from <www.google.com.au> is a Wikipedia page that has a link
to the entry for the phrase in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_baseball>:
The infielders' practice of throwing the ball to each
other after recording an out (provided that there are no
runners on base). The purpose is as much traditional as
anything else, but it serves to keep the infielders'
throwing arms warm. Typically, if an out is made at
first base, the first baseman will throw to the second
baseman, who throws to the shortstop, who throws to the
third baseman, who returns the ball to the pitcher.
Patterns vary from team to team, but the third baseman
is usually the last infielder to receive a throw,
regardless of the pattern.
Throwing the ball around the horn is also done when
there are no baserunners after a strikeout. The catcher
will throw the ball to the third baseman, who then
throws it to the second baseman, who throws it to the
shortstop. The shortstop then throws the ball back to
the third baseman, who returns the ball to the pitcher.
It is not certain why the first baseman is omitted from
this process, although some catchers, notably Ivan
Rodriguez, prefer to throw the ball to the first
baseman, who then begins the process in reverse. Some
catchers determine whom they will throw to based on the
handedness of the batter (to first for a right-handed
batter because the line to the first baseman is not
blocked and vice versa) or whether the team is in an
overshift, when the third baseman would be playing close
to where the shortstop normally plays and would require
a harder throw to be reached.
An additional application of this term is for a 5-4-3
double play, which mimics the pattern of throwing around
the horn.
I shouldn't be surprised if the baseball sense is borrowed
directly from the sailing sense.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:938mgu...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I know it's not Ancient Egyptian or Sanskrit or Hittite,
> but it's foreign to me - perhaps even more foreign than
> cricket would be to an American reader.
Probably not more so. Very few Americans could make
anything of 'flighted and on the middle and leg, sweeps it
to fine leg for a boundary', for instance.
[...]
Brian
David DeLaney
>Thank you. That last part was more difficult to understand, but I get
>the idea. How come "horn", though? Does anybody know? Does it just mean
>'a long way round'?
Derives from "around the Horn", which refers to Cape Horn at <pause while
Dave looks up where at exactly, bleah> the south tip of Chile in South
America. Before there was the Panama Canal, ships that wanted to go from
the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, or vice versa, had this as the shortest
navigable-in-practice route, which was pretty long.
Dave "i have no joke here, i just like saying 'williwaw winds'" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> but it's foreign to me - perhaps even more foreign than
>> cricket would be to an American reader.
>
>Probably not more so. Very few Americans could make
>anything of 'flighted and on the middle and leg, sweeps it
>to fine leg for a boundary', for instance.
...I could make a hat - or a brooch - or a pterodactyl...
Dave "GIVE me that!" DeLaney
Dorothy J Heydt
Heh. I sure couldn't.
I'm very fond of Sayers's _Murder Must Advertise,_ in one of
whose chapters an entire cricket match in excruciating and
obscure detail, all in order to tell the sufficiently astute
reader that one of the suspects is capable of throwing something
at a target and hitting it. I tend to skim that chapter, reading
about the lemonade and sandwiches and Lord Peter getting hit on
the elbow, and ignoring the rest.
Kurt Busiek
> On 16/05/11 5:54 AM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> How about looking it up, rather than berating other people for not
>> answering someone else's question in the manner you'd like?
>>
>> If someone does explain that "around the horn" means "around the
>> infield," will it enrich your life?
>
> Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around Cape Horn"
Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
got.
> and that is what Google will tell me.
Also bullshit, as I've just verified by checking it on Google, Google
AU and Google UK. You apparently didn't bother to look.
Plus, even if that's what you got, a sensible person would narrow the
search by adding the word "baseball."
> As for "putting out", a nice girl wouldn't.
Yeah, you're apparently making no effort whatsoever. I'm not sure why
anyone would want to help out someone who is actively trying to avoid
context.
Derek Lyons
>On 16/05/11 5:54 AM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> If someone does explain that "around the horn" means "around the
>> infield," will it enrich your life?
>
>Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around Cape Horn" and
>that is what Google will tell me.
If you're stupid enough to not know the difference between going
"around the horn" and "going around the Horn"... I don't see how you
read this newsgroup and breathe simultaneously.
And since you lacked the brain power to google on "around the horn", I
did in your place and discovered exactly what I suspected - Google is
smarter than you and supplies the sports term right in the first
result.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Geoffrey Garrett
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> >> I know it's not Ancient Egyptian or Sanskrit or Hittite,
> >> but it's foreign to me - perhaps even more foreign than
> >> cricket would be to an American reader.
> >
> >Probably not more so. Very few Americans could make
> >anything of 'flighted and on the middle and leg, sweeps it
> >to fine leg for a boundary', for instance.
>
> ...I could make a hat - or a brooch - or a pterodactyl...
>
> Dave "GIVE me that!" DeLaney
Better check the radar range...
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:LL9uy...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <10lj620l65ui0$.4sdzg2e5sc70$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 May 2011 08:53:47 +0800, Robert Bannister
>><rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
>><news:938mgu...@mid.individual.net> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> I know it's not Ancient Egyptian or Sanskrit or Hittite,
>>> but it's foreign to me - perhaps even more foreign than
>>> cricket would be to an American reader.
>> Probably not more so. Very few Americans could make
>> anything of 'flighted and on the middle and leg, sweeps
>> it to fine leg for a boundary', for instance.
> Heh. I sure couldn't.
> I'm very fond of Sayers's _Murder Must Advertise,_ in one
> of whose chapters an entire cricket match in excruciating
> and obscure detail,
Oh, I'd not go quite *that* far: the real detail is mostly
limited to Lord Peter's heroics after getting his funny-bone
twanged.
> all in order to tell the sufficiently astute reader that
> one of the suspects is capable of throwing something at a
> target and hitting it.
And to add a bit to Miss Meteyard's characterisation.
It's actually one of my favorite bits, perhaps second only
to his sending that suspect off into the night.
[...]
Brian
William Hyde
> In article <LL99y9.1...@kithrup.com>,
> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
> > Okay, but what does it *mean*? "Just as in baseball the
> > putout a different pattern but every pattern counterclockwise;
> > just as the third baseman, and only the third baseman, was to
> > touch the ball last on the return to the pitcher."
>
>
> second-baseman to shortstop[1] to third-baseman, or the other way
> around.
William, William, William. You're not supposed to explain in response
to a question that might be answerable by google. You're supposed to
show your exasperation, then refer the questioner to google, then once
again express despair at this sad waste of electrons. Followed by an
insult or two if you are in the mood.
Thus advancing the glorious day when all questions on this group, nay,
all questions on every group, will be razor-sharp probes into What
Really Matters.
William Hyde
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 2011-05-15 17:29:57 -0700, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > On 16/05/11 5:54 AM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> >> How about looking it up, rather than berating other people for not
> >> answering someone else's question in the manner you'd like?
> >>
> >> If someone does explain that "around the horn" means "around the
> >> infield," will it enrich your life?
> >
> > Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around Cape Horn"
>
> Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
> responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
> information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
> got.
I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
and I recognize the term "infield". But in fact "around the horn" definitely
means "around Cape Horn" to me; I had to guess at a metaphorical use, and
apply other knowledge of baseball, to get roughly what was meant.
While many Americans know a lot more about baseball than I do, I'm not
shocked that some know less.
>
> > and that is what Google will tell me.
>
> Also bullshit, as I've just verified by checking it on Google, Google
> AU and Google UK. You apparently didn't bother to look.
This is one of those ones where the conflict is so obvious that
I wouldn't bother to look without a better search. So, sometimes I'm
wrong about that kind of thing.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 16, 2011 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
>> responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
>> information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
>> got.
The information given in the first wave was about *why* the
infielders were doing what they were doing. No one had, at the
time I asked, told us *what* they were doing.
>
>I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
>and I recognize the term "infield".
Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
ball around, or running around themselves.
>While many Americans know a lot more about baseball than I do, I'm not
>shocked that some know less.
>
Particularly since I (who definitely know less than anybody) am
(a) female, (b) of a certain age, and (c) one who has always
hated P.E., which sometimes involved playing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgoing
through the motions of playing softball. Note that in elementary
school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
sport that we were forced to play.
Kurt Busiek
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2011-05-15 17:29:57 -0700, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>>> On 16/05/11 5:54 AM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>> How about looking it up, rather than berating other people for not
>>>> answering someone else's question in the manner you'd like?
>>>>
>>>> If someone does explain that "around the horn" means "around the
>>>> infield," will it enrich your life?
>>>
>>> Perhaps it does mean that to you. To me, it means "around Cape Horn"
>>
>> Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
>> responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
>> information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
>> got.
>
> I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
> and I recognize the term "infield". But in fact "around the horn" definitely
> means "around Cape Horn" to me; I had to guess at a metaphorical use, and
> apply other knowledge of baseball, to get roughly what was meant.
As I noted, it had already been explained in previous answers. In fact,
quoting from the message where Dorothy was asking what "around the
horn" meant, both she and Robert already had this to work with:
"... the catcher will immediately throw the ball to the third-baseman.
The camera probably won't follow the action, but the ball then gets
thrown around the infield until the first-baseman gets it, and he
throws it to the pitcher."
Someone reading that and assuming that "around the horn" must mean
"around Cape Horn," as Robert was pretending to, is clearly being
disingenuous.
>>> and that is what Google will tell me.
>>
>> Also bullshit, as I've just verified by checking it on Google, Google
>> AU and Google UK. You apparently didn't bother to look.
>
> This is one of those ones where the conflict is so obvious that
> I wouldn't bother to look without a better search. So, sometimes I'm
> wrong about that kind of thing.
And Robert insisted that Google would not tell him what it, in fact,
would. He's asking for information and then denying he has it and
refusing to look.And he's the one who was asking for help.
Dorothy just wanted someone to explain the rules of baseball to her, so
she could say she doesn't know or care about that stuff. Which, sure
enough, she did.
Kurt Busiek
> In article
> <56863562-93d6-4b57...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
David
>
> Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
>>> responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
>>> information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
>>> got.
>
> The information given in the first wave was about *why* the
> infielders were doing what they were doing. No one had, at the
> time I asked, told us *what* they were doing.
This is not actually true. The very post you were responding to told
you what they were doing.
>> I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
>> and I recognize the term "infield".
>
> Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
> ball around, or running around themselves.
Also not true. You were even asking what "threw the ball around the
horn" meant, so you yourself knew that they were throwing the ball
around the horn. Unless you didn't read your own question.
>> While many Americans know a lot more about baseball than I do, I'm not
>> shocked that some know less.
>>
> Particularly since I (who definitely know less than anybody) am
> (a) female, (b) of a certain age, and (c) one who has always
> hated P.E., which sometimes involved playing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgoing
> through the motions of playing softball. Note that in elementary
> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> sport that we were forced to play.
And you still don't care.
The meaning of the passage isn't literal; the fact that it's a variable
but instinctively-understood pattern is what matters, and that had
already been explained. And if we ask you in three days what "throwing
the ball around the horn" means, you won't be able to say. Because
you're not sking because you want to know, you're asking because it
passes the time to insist people who are answering other people's
questions make sure to fill you in, too, so you can then say you don't
care about sports anyway.
Heck, you care so little about it, you'd forgotten you were asking
about throwing the ball one message after you'd asked about throwing
the ball, and have been insisting since than no one said anything about
throwing the ball.
Even though it's in the quote being asked about, in the responses to
that quote and in your own question.
Robert Bannister
> In article<10lj620l65ui0$.4sdzg2e5sc70$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 08:53:47 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
>> <news:938mgu...@mid.individual.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I know it's not Ancient Egyptian or Sanskrit or Hittite,
>>> but it's foreign to me - perhaps even more foreign than
>>> cricket would be to an American reader.
>>
>> Probably not more so. Very few Americans could make
>> anything of 'flighted and on the middle and leg, sweeps it
>> to fine leg for a boundary', for instance.
>
> Heh. I sure couldn't.
>
> I'm very fond of Sayers's _Murder Must Advertise,_ in one of
> whose chapters an entire cricket match in excruciating and
> obscure detail, all in order to tell the sufficiently astute
> reader that one of the suspects is capable of throwing something
> at a target and hitting it. I tend to skim that chapter, reading
> about the lemonade and sandwiches and Lord Peter getting hit on
> the elbow, and ignoring the rest.
>
Although, with my life spent in England and Australia, cricket is
'officially' part of my culture, I have similar difficulties with
over-technical cricket descriptions and I too would skim a chapter of
that sort. Thinking to sports I do know something about (rugby union), I
don't think I like sporting metaphors much at all in novels that are not
about sport, although I do realise that there are a large number of
words in English that stem directly from horse racing, billiards, etc.
whose source is not always immediately obvious.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
I think this is the most recent post in this thread to date, so I would
like to piggyback on it to once again thank everyone for their kind
explanations. I won't dare ask what the "What Really Matters" might be,
though, lest it turn out to be the difference between science fiction
and fantasy.
--
Robert Bannister
Joel Olson
news:93dtb3...@mid.individual.net...
>
Inflation, or maybe just before that, mattered a lot.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <56863562-93d6-4b57...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 16, 2011 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> >>
> >> Bullshit. Or at least, it only means that if you haven't read the
> >> responses you got so far. Dorothy's been asking for _even_more_
> >> information she doesn't care about, even after seeing the answers you
> >> got.
>
> The information given in the first wave was about *why* the
> infielders were doing what they were doing. No one had, at the
> time I asked, told us *what* they were doing.
> >
> >I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
> >and I recognize the term "infield".
>
> Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
> ball around, or running around themselves.
Interesting; I never even noticed that. I didn't consciously think
of the question and then rule out the "running around themselves"
theory; it never came up as a question.
> >While many Americans know a lot more about baseball than I do, I'm not
> >shocked that some know less.
> >
> Particularly since I (who definitely know less than anybody) am
> (a) female, (b) of a certain age, and (c) one who has always
> hated P.E., which sometimes involved playing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgoing
> through the motions of playing softball. Note that in elementary
> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> sport that we were forced to play.
I noticed that; apparently anything the slightest bit like actually
"teaching" was completely beyond the conception of the kind of thug
they assign to teach PE.
Brian M. Scott
<illeg...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:aa9876b0-bab7-47fd...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 4:12:50 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
[...]
>> Note that in elementary school and high school nobody
>> ever told us the rules for *any* sport that we were
>> forced to play.
> I noticed that; apparently anything the slightest bit like
> actually "teaching" was completely beyond the conception
> of the kind of thug they assign to teach PE.
While I was not at all fond of PE, I have to say that the
boys' PE teacher at the junior high that I attended was very
good, as was one of the PE teachers at my high school.
Neither was at all thuggish, and both did as much teaching
as they could, given the overlarge classes with which they
had to contend.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
You lucked out. The female PE teachers at my schools never said
anything but "Get out there and play ball!"
Doug Wickström
That would be the microwave cooker, rather than the slant range
in nautical miles?
--
Doug Wickström
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 06:20:32 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
> <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote in
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On Monday, May 16, 2011 4:12:50 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Note that in elementary school and high school nobody
> >> ever told us the rules for *any* sport that we were
> >> forced to play.
>
> > I noticed that; apparently anything the slightest bit like
> > actually "teaching" was completely beyond the conception
> > of the kind of thug they assign to teach PE.
>
> While I was not at all fond of PE, I have to say that the
> boys' PE teacher at the junior high that I attended was very
> good, as was one of the PE teachers at my high school.
> Neither was at all thuggish, and both did as much teaching
> as they could, given the overlarge classes with which they
> had to contend.
Good for them!
Our weren't actually that thuggish; I'm just still peeved about
the whole thing. They really did avoid teaching really dilligently.
Even in the swimming part of the program, there was no
attempt to teach anybody to swim or anything like that.
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, my lot did have a life-saving course (the high school had a
huge pool) in which they actually taught us the basics of hauling
people out of the water. Including a sort of judo hold for
breaking the grip of someone who's desperately clutching at you,
turning him on his back, and grabbing him under his chin for
purposes of hauling him in. I'll give them that.
Moriarty
> In article <4e14717c-1f7b-494e-8555-85dd8353a...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
<snip>
> Well, my lot did have a life-saving course (the high school had a
> huge pool) in which they actually taught us the basics of hauling
> people out of the water. Including a sort of judo hold for
> breaking the grip of someone who's desperately clutching at you,
> turning him on his back, and grabbing him under his chin for
> purposes of hauling him in. I'll give them that.
FWIW the judo hold you mention is out-dated. These days they teach
you to grab the panicky grabber by the hips, push them upwards out of
the water while you go underwater. Similtaneously you spin them
around and then get them from behind over the shoulder.
The theory being that someone panicking about drowning isn't going to
follow you underwater to maintain their grip.
Actually, looking at what I describe, it could fit your definition of
"a sort of judo hold". If so, carry on. Nothing to see here.
-Moriarty
Dorothy J Heydt
The one we learned involved grabbing one of the grabber's arms at
wrist and elbow, turning it somehow, and twisting it behind his
back. I think. It's been about fifty years. I wouldn't be
surprised if they've come up with something better in that time.
Robert Bannister
That's pretty much as I remember it, but of course, back then, we hadn't
even heard of mouth to mouth, so when we got the vict^H^H^H^H rescued
person back to shore (edge of swimming pool), we turned them on their
side and gave something with a vaguely Swedish name: something Neillsen?
My brain keeps saying Neil Armstrong, but I've learnt to ignore it at
times like this.
--
Robert Bannister
Jesper Lauridsen
> On Monday, May 16, 2011 4:12:50 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <56863562-93d6-4b57...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
>> David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
>> >and I recognize the term "infield".
>>
>> Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
>> ball around, or running around themselves.
>
> Interesting; I never even noticed that. I didn't consciously think
> of the question and then rule out the "running around themselves"
> theory; it never came up as a question.
The original quote included "the infielders threw the ball around the
horn", so running is really not an option here.
Joy Beeson
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> . . . back then, we hadn't
> even heard of mouth to mouth, so when we got the vict^H^H^H^H rescued
> person back to shore (edge of swimming pool), we turned them on their
> side and gave something with a vaguely Swedish name: something Neillsen?
Holger-Neilsen, if I recall correctly.
Also called back pressure-arm lift. Out, goesthe, bad, air; in,
comes, thegood, air.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Kurt Busiek
<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> said:
Heck, Dorothy even asked what "throwing the ball around the horn"
meant, so you'd think she'd have noticed the verb she used before she
started asserting that no one had mentioned it before.
Garrett Wollman
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Note that in elementary school and high school nobody ever told us
>the rules for *any* sport that we were forced to play.
Of course not. You were supposed to have learned them from your
father, like every other red-blooded American child.
(Didn't do that for you either, eh? My father taught me how to tie
knots, split firewood, and do basic home electrical and plumbing work,
but not the rules of baseball -- I had to figure that out for myself,
much later. I still don't understand all of them. I suspect he
probably would have been pleased if I had ever thought to ask him,
before I got to the age when he became totally clueless in my eyes.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Dorothy J Heydt
Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Note that in elementary school and high school nobody ever told us
>>the rules for *any* sport that we were forced to play.
>
>Of course not. You were supposed to have learned them from your
>father, like every other red-blooded American child.
Are you kidding? If I'd been a boy, maybe. But I was a girl.
My father never tried to teach me any sports whatever. Figured I
couldn't learn, I guess. He may have been right.
Garrett Wollman
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <ir4qbt$29hi$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
>Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Note that in elementary school and high school nobody ever told us
>>>the rules for *any* sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>>Of course not. You were supposed to have learned them from your
>>father, like every other red-blooded American child.
>
>Are you kidding? If I'd been a boy, maybe. But I was a girl.
>My father never tried to teach me any sports whatever. Figured I
>couldn't learn, I guess. He may have been right.
Perhaps if you had read the rest of my post, your sarcasm detector
might have activated.
David Goldfarb
>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>sport that we were forced to play.
Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
--
David Goldfarb |"To summarize the summary of the summary:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | People are a problem."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams
Robert Carnegie
> In article <LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >Note that in elementary
> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> >sport that we were forced to play.
>
> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
I assume Dorothy only did so when she gave a damn, which was probably
never, and of course would have had to do so in her own time, not
during the "lesson". The P.T. teacher got the students to not bug
them for say half an hour, maybe Dorothy got to stand peacefully
somewhere out of the way instead of being compelled to run around,
everyone was as satisfied as the constraints of the situation allowed
- except during winter, that is.
My school teachers did teach game rules, but latterly only with a view
to your possible inclusion in the inter-school competition team, which
was something that he!appened to other people. But the rest of us
still had to dress in cotton shorts and open-neck shirts, underwear
not allowed (nor a book - well, I don't remember ever trying), and
plod out on and in the snow in December for an hour, with one or more
rugby balls in sight somewhere. And then a muddy communal cold bath.
I think they must have only been trying to inspire a lifelong hatred
of, well, everything.
Robert Carnegie
> On 2011-05-19 17:37:37 -0700, Jesper Lauridsen
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-05-17, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 16, 2011 4:12:50 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>> In article <56863562-93d6-4b57...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
> >>>> and I recognize the term "infield".
>
> >>> Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
> >>> ball around, or running around themselves.
>
> >> Interesting; I never even noticed that. I didn't consciously think
> >> of the question and then rule out the "running around themselves"
> >> theory; it never came up as a question.
>
> > The original quote included "the infielders threw the ball around the
> > horn", so running is really not an option here.
>
> Heck, Dorothy even asked what "throwing the ball around the horn"
> meant, so you'd think she'd have noticed the verb she used before she
> started asserting that no one had mentioned it before.
What with metonymy and so forth, I find it entirely reasonable to
inquire whether "throwing" an article in a sport involves letting it
go, or transporting it around carried in the hands, or propelled by
the feet, or carried across the horse, or the broomstick.
And David (I think it was) wanted someone to translate the story, not
the game. I'm not sure if that was achieved, or found to be
impossible except by doing the other.
Sportsmen evoke for me the Eight Deadly Words, except of course if
there's a plane crash or a juicy infidelity story or some other actual
interest of the kind that could happen to anyone.
Dorothy J Heydt
Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <LLH9C...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <ir4qbt$29hi$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
>>Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>>>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>Note that in elementary school and high school nobody ever told us
>>>>the rules for *any* sport that we were forced to play.
>>>
>>>Of course not. You were supposed to have learned them from your
>>>father, like every other red-blooded American child.
>>
>>Are you kidding? If I'd been a boy, maybe. But I was a girl.
>>My father never tried to teach me any sports whatever. Figured I
>>couldn't learn, I guess. He may have been right.
>
>Perhaps if you had read the rest of my post, your sarcasm detector
>might have activated.
I read it. I snipped it.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Note that in elementary
>>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>sport that we were forced to play.
>
>Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
I have no idea. Certainly there were some who knew more than I
did. I got the impression that most of us were just milling
around and faking it.
>Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
To the library? To read up on how to play basketball or
volleyball? No it did not, and I have no idea whether our dinky
little school library had anything of the sort.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >Note that in elementary
> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> >sport that we were forced to play.
>
> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
You know, it never would have occurred to me to go looking for
rules of sports written down in a book. Interesting idea.
Sports were something that happened outside, which is not
book territory.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
AOL. Especially when I was a kid, it would either be like looking up
"how to walk" (since it seemed to be assumed everyone knew it) or
looking up "how to snort dryer lint" (because it was a subject I not
only had no interest in, but could not easily imagine anyone HAVING an
interest in).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Yeah. It wasn't until the Web kicked in big time - 1997? - that I
realised all these things actually could be looked up. I never thought
of looking in the school library.
I still have no idea of the real rules for football, cricket, rugby or
hockey besides the ones that you can spot in five minutes of watching
the sport played. But if I did, I'd know how to research them now.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Whilst holidaying with the sprogs and watching Favourite Teddy Bear
trundling through the x-ray, I speculated on the fun that could be had
with a teddy bear containing a radio-opaque teddy-bear skeleton.
- K, asr
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:LLHu6...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <LLHD7...@kithrup.com>,
> David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
> To the library? To read up on how to play basketball or
> volleyball? No it did not,
I'm surprised. I'm not sure whether I did it with any
sports, but I distinctly recall doing it for dancing, which
was occasionally also part of PE. (They did try to teach us
some steps, but I wanted a bit more, and more leisure to
think about it.)
> and I have no idea whether our dinky little school library
> had anything of the sort.
I probably didn't even look; it would have been automatic to
use the public library.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<illeg...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:38dbbef2-4a3a-4c3d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
Bizarre. I assumed from a very early age that *everything*
was book territory. Then again, I occasionally used the
Book of Knowledge as bedtime reading.
Brian
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:44:58 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
> <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote in
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On Friday, May 20, 2011 1:11:51 AM UTC-5, David Goldfarb wrote:
>
> >> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Note that in elementary school and high school nobody
> >>> ever told us the rules for *any* sport that we were
> >>> forced to play.
>
> >> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know
> >> them?
>
> >> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>
> > You know, it never would have occurred to me to go looking
> > for rules of sports written down in a book. Interesting
> > idea. Sports were something that happened outside,
> > which is not book territory.
>
> Bizarre. I assumed from a very early age that *everything*
> was book territory. Then again, I occasionally used the
> Book of Knowledge as bedtime reading.
Well, sure, everything real.
But sports aren't real. It's like looking up the rules to
hopscotch; just makes no sense. (I'm sure there are dozens
of inconsistent rules online today!)
Dorothy J Heydt
I don't even know where the public library *was* in Newport
Beach. Looking back, I don't even know if Newport Beach (the one
in California, by the way) *had* one.
I did know where the Balboa public library was (I first
read the _Ancrene Riwle_ there), but that was a couple of miles
down the Balboa peninsula from where I lived, and I didn't (and
still don't) drive. I had to depend on my father being willing
to drive me there, which sometimes he was and sometimes not.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Newport Bec
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
My learning was subtly different. Everything *IMPORTANT* was book
territory, and could be looked up.
Michael Stemper
>On May 20, 7:11=A0am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> In article <LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> >Note that in elementary
>> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>> >sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>>
>> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>My school teachers did teach game rules, but latterly only with a view
>to your possible inclusion in the inter-school competition team, which
>was something that he!appened to other people. But the rest of us
>still had to dress in cotton shorts and open-neck shirts, underwear
>not allowed
You had to go commando? That sounds unsafe. We were required to
wear a jock strap in my school system's PE program.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?
Jerry Brown
Wow, you like sports a lot more than I do (apologies to Anim8rFSK).
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Michael Stemper
>In article <LLHD7...@kithrup.com>, David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Note that in elementary
>>>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>>sport that we were forced to play.
>>Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>
>To the library? To read up on how to play basketball or
>volleyball? No it did not,
For about half of fifth and all of sixth grade, I had a serious baseball
bug.[1] So, I went to the grade school library and checked out every book
on the topic.[2] One of them was so full of information that I felt compelled
to take copious notes on what I was reading, something that I didn't do
again until college.
[1] "I got better."
[2] Spending a lot of time outside, throwing and catching and hitting
a ball, never quite occurred to me.
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <LLHu6...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) writes:
>>In article <LLHD7...@kithrup.com>, David Goldfarb
><gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Note that in elementary
>>>>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>>>sport that we were forced to play.
>
>>>Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>>
>>To the library? To read up on how to play basketball or
>>volleyball? No it did not,
>
>For about half of fifth and all of sixth grade, I had a serious baseball
>bug.[1] So, I went to the grade school library and checked out every book
>on the topic.[2]
Okay, that makes sense. You were *interested*.
>One of them was so full of information that I felt compelled
>to take copious notes on what I was reading, something that I didn't do
>again until college.
>
>[1] "I got better."
>[2] Spending a lot of time outside, throwing and catching and hitting
>a ball, never quite occurred to me.
Theory over practice, like so many of us.
Robert Carnegie
wrote:
> In article <b5c53a25-91f7-490c-ada2-2df02a895...@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes:
>
> >On May 20, 7:11=A0am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >> In article <LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> >Note that in elementary
> >> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> >> >sport that we were forced to play.
>
> >> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
> >> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
> >My school teachers did teach game rules, but latterly only with a view
> >to your possible inclusion in the inter-school competition team, which
> >was something that he!appened to other people. But the rest of us
> >still had to dress in cotton shorts and open-neck shirts, underwear
> >not allowed
>
> You had to go commando? That sounds unsafe. We were required to
> wear a jock strap in my school system's PE program.
I suppose it was... well, I don't know or care, I don't have to do it
any more.
But perhaps:
- If mud isn't ground through the fabric of your rugby shorts, you
aren't doing it right (except in earth-stood-hard-as-iron season)
- Making you wear the same underwear during and after that was too
ghastly for even them to put you through, but clean underwear was an
unnecessary expense to the school laundry
- This way was more fun
- You'd run that much faster when that boarder from Thailand was
behind you going for the tackle
You know... I have never been reconciled to any game where players
sometimes leave the field with a broken neck and no one's particularly
surprised.
Dorothy J Heydt
The Society for Creative Anachronism -- who fight with real armor
and fake swords (made of rattan wrapped with duct tape) likes to
boast that we have a lower injury rate than high-school basketball.
Suzanne Blom
Yes, British culture never ceases to amaze me the cricket-and-rugby
extremes all kind of at once. I like the anthropology of it.
My own culture has its own extremes, of course, but, since I live here,
it's as much scary as interesting.
Kurt Busiek
> On May 20, 5:06 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> The original quote included "the infielders threw the ball around the
>>> horn", so running is really not an option here.
>>
>> Heck, Dorothy even asked what "throwing the ball around the horn"
>> meant, so you'd think she'd have noticed the verb she used before she
>> started asserting that no one had mentioned it before.
>
> What with metonymy and so forth, I find it entirely reasonable to
> inquire whether "throwing" an article in a sport involves letting it
> go, or transporting it around carried in the hands, or propelled by
> the feet, or carried across the horse, or the broomstick.
Oh, bullshit.
Seriously. That's utter bullshit.
"Why yes, when we say a baseball is 'thrown,' we mean it is tranported
by broom."
> And David (I think it was) wanted someone to translate the story, not
> the game. I'm not sure if that was achieved, or found to be
> impossible except by doing the other.
I think it was answered in the first two responses, which ignored
explaining the rules of baseball and instead explained that it was
getting at, storywise.
> Sportsmen evoke for me the Eight Deadly Words, except of course if
> there's a plane crash or a juicy infidelity story or some other actual
> interest of the kind that could happen to anyone.
And yet, here you and Dorothy are, continuing to discuss something that
bores you as an illustration of how much it bores you. To be fair to
you, though, Dorothy's doing much more of it -- we now know the she
doesn't care, never learned, wasn't taught at school or home, can't
imagine what "throwing the ball" means and has no interest in sports.
But repeatedly, of course.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <ir4vrh$2n7k$2...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>> In article <LLH9C...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ir4qbt$29hi$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
>>> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>>>> In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>> Note that in elementary school and high school nobody ever told us
>>>>> the rules for *any* sport that we were forced to play.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. You were supposed to have learned them from your
>>>> father, like every other red-blooded American child.
>>>
>>> Are you kidding? If I'd been a boy, maybe. But I was a girl.
>>> My father never tried to teach me any sports whatever. Figured I
>>> couldn't learn, I guess. He may have been right.
>>
>> Perhaps if you had read the rest of my post, your sarcasm detector
>> might have activated.
>
> I read it. I snipped it.
It was, after all, too important to ask if he was kidding as a lead-in
to one more assertion of ignorance and apathy, so including the part
that made it clear that yes, he was kidding just wouldn't have been
fair, eh?
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> On 5/20/11 11:06 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:44:58 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
>> <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:38dbbef2-4a3a-4c3d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>> You know, it never would have occurred to me to go looking
>>> for rules of sports written down in a book. Interesting
>>> idea. Sports were something that happened outside,
>>> which is not book territory.
>>
>> Bizarre. I assumed from a very early age that *everything*
>> was book territory.
>
> My learning was subtly different. Everything *IMPORTANT* was book
> territory, and could be looked up.
I think it was reading MISS HAPPINESS & MISS FLOWER by Rumer Godden, in
which the lead character confidently goes to a bookstore looking for
101 WAYS TO BUILD A JAPANESE DOLLHOUSE, only to find that no such book
existed, that I got hooked into the idea that there were books on
almost everything, and that even when there weren't books on something,
the information was still out there, just spread across multiple books.
Jerry Brown
not to mention the block
David DeLaney
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Note that in elementary
>>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>sport that we were forced to play.
>
>Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
<raises hand>
>Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
No, not at all. Why would the library have useful information on practices
being held _currently_ at my school? I might have felt impelled to do so if
we were being quizzed on rounders rules, or on the rules in effect in baseball
during the Civil War, but the library wouldn't have books on "whatever the
PE coach of the semester thought the rules were for the game". Much less on
"whatever the rest of the kids in the class were actually playing as though
the rules were".
Kids today with their internets and their tweets and their wikiblogospheres,
they're SPOILED, I tell you. Hari Seldon's research into how children pass
down their rhymes and games and taboos can't come soon enough.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Bannister
>> Note that in elementary
>> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>> sport that we were forced to play.
>
> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
>
That is the most ridiculous suggestion ever. I sympathise with Dorothy's
position:
at primary school, we were taken to the sports ground and asked who
could play football (by which the teacher meant soccer). Those who said
yes were taken and coached. The rest of us were left to amuse ourselves.
Since I had never been interested in soccer, why on earth would I go and
look up the rules in a library? If someone had /shown/ me what to do, I
might have made an effort.
When I turned eleven and went to high school, we were actually shown how
to play rugby football. While I admit I didn't take a lot of interest in
it at school, but when I left, I did join the Old Boys' Football Club
and continued playing till I was 31.
--
Robert Bannister
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>And yet, here you and Dorothy are, continuing to discuss something that
>bores you as an illustration of how much it bores you.
And so are you. There's a sort of pleasing symmetry there, but I'm
still going to killfile several subthreads.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Pain is nature's way of telling you that you are in terrible agony
Robert Bannister
> On 2011-05-17, David Dyer-Bennet<illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2011 4:12:50 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article<56863562-93d6-4b57...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> David Dyer-Bennet<rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I guessed that they were using "around the horn" to mean "around the diamond",
>>>> and I recognize the term "infield".
>>>
>>> Likewise; but nobody mentioned whether they were throwing the
>>> ball around, or running around themselves.
>>
>> Interesting; I never even noticed that. I didn't consciously think
>> of the question and then rule out the "running around themselves"
>> theory; it never came up as a question.
>
> horn", so running is really not an option here.
On the other hand, when I followed a suggestion made here and googled
"around the horn baseball", among a whole heap of incomprehensible
baseball jargon, there was one with diagrams. Aha, thought I, this will
tell me something. In fact, it turned out to be some coaching/training
drill in which the ball was thrown to first base, who passed it to
second and then ran to second, while presumably the second baseman ran
to third and so on.
--
Robert Bannister
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 20/05/11 2:11 PM, David Goldfarb wrote:
>> In article<LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Note that in elementary
>>> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>> sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>>
>> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>>
>
> That is the most ridiculous suggestion ever. I sympathise with Dorothy's
> position:
>
> at primary school, we were taken to the sports ground and asked who
> could play football (by which the teacher meant soccer). Those who said
> yes were taken and coached. The rest of us were left to amuse ourselves.
Had you been in an American school, you would NOT have been left to
amuse yourself. You would have been expected to play football (American)
or baseball, or whatever sadistic games the teacher was interested in
that day.
William Hyde
> In article <LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>,
>
> >Note that in elementary
> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> >sport that we were forced to play.
>
> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
I knew the rules for hockey and football, but this baseball crap?
> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
That comes under the category of collaborating with the enemy. Not to
mention wasting good library time when I could have been reading "Red
Planet". If they wanted me to enjoy sports, they could damned well
have a hockey rink. In May.
William Hyde
Robert Bannister
No, no. Books came under "fun". Everything outside smacked of pain or work.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
And now it is. Usually prefaced by "Wiki-" and not always reliable, but
it's there.
--
Robert Bannister
William Hyde
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/11 8:14 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20/05/11 2:11 PM, David Goldfarb wrote:
> >> Dorothy J Heydt<djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>> Note that in elementary
> >>> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
> >>> sport that we were forced to play.
>
> >> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
> >> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>
> > That is the most ridiculous suggestion ever. I sympathise with Dorothy's
> > position:
>
> > at primary school, we were taken to the sports ground and asked who
> > could play football (by which the teacher meant soccer). Those who said
> > yes were taken and coached. The rest of us were left to amuse ourselves.
>
> Had you been in an American school, you would NOT have been left to
> amuse yourself. You would have been expected to play football (American)
> or baseball, or whatever sadistic games the teacher was interested in
> that day.
I got out of that by agreeing just to run around the track the whole
period - and by being disruptive influence during the games (I was
not alone in that but possibly I was mistaken for the ringleader). If
only I'd thought of that sooner I'd have been in ludicrously good
shape by the time I left school. As it was, I was pretty fit, which I
never became playing football or baseball.
William Hyde
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On May 20, 8:40 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/11 8:14 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20/05/11 2:11 PM, David Goldfarb wrote:
>>>> In article<LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>,
>>>> Dorothy J Heydt<djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>> Note that in elementary
>>>>> school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>>>> sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>>>> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>>
>>>> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>>
>>> That is the most ridiculous suggestion ever. I sympathise with Dorothy's
>>> position:
>>
>>> at primary school, we were taken to the sports ground and asked who
>>> could play football (by which the teacher meant soccer). Those who said
>>> yes were taken and coached. The rest of us were left to amuse ourselves.
>>
>> Had you been in an American school, you would NOT have been left to
>> amuse yourself. You would have been expected to play football (American)
>> or baseball, or whatever sadistic games the teacher was interested in
>> that day.
>
> I got out of that by agreeing just to run around the track the whole
> period -
Not an option, unless I was deliberately choosing a most unpleasant
suicide by self-suffocation.
William Hyde
I can see where that would have been marginally worse than football.
Mind you, I was a terrible athelete and at first I more or less walked
rapidly around the track. It took a couple of months before I could
run for 40 minutes (if I tried that again it would take at least a
couple of years with probably a few visits to emergency). I could
probably have just done the "fast walk" thing the whole time. The key
point was that a bothersome student was out of the class and doing
something exercise-y so the teacher's conscience was clear. And even
a fast walk was better exercise than, say, volleyball.
I found other ways out. One winter day (well, many) I got out of
volleyball by heading outside to kick field goals. Yes, it was a bit
cold, but worth it. The best of the best was when I got permission to
go outside and kick field goals with rocks. I don't think the
teachers were really trying that day. But I did, albeit with stones
rather than rocks. It didn't hurt as much as sports. What an utter
waste of time gym was.
William Hyde
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On May 20, 11:01 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/11 9:10 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>
>>>> Had you been in an American school, you would NOT have been left to
>>>> amuse yourself. You would have been expected to play football (American)
>>>> or baseball, or whatever sadistic games the teacher was interested in
>>>> that day.
>>
>>> I got out of that by agreeing just to run around the track the whole
>>> period -
>>
>> Not an option, unless I was deliberately choosing a most unpleasant
>> suicide by self-suffocation.
>
> I can see where that would have been marginally worse than football.
> Mind you, I was a terrible athelete and at first I more or less walked
> rapidly around the track. It took a couple of months before I could
> run for 40 minutes (if I tried that again it would take at least a
> couple of years with probably a few visits to emergency). I could
> probably have just done the "fast walk" thing the whole time. The key
> point was that a bothersome student was out of the class and doing
> something exercise-y so the teacher's conscience was clear. And even
> a fast walk was better exercise than, say, volleyball.
>
> I found other ways out.
Mine usually involved visits to the hospital and subsequent notes
reminding them that I was an effort-induced asthmatic and Bad Things
happened if they actually made me expend effort.
Dorothy J Heydt
William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 2:11 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> In article <LLB49E.1...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Note that in elementary
>> >school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>> >sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>> Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
>I knew the rules for hockey and football, but this baseball crap?
>
>> Did it occur to you to go to the library and look them up?
>
>That comes under the category of collaborating with the enemy. Not to
>mention wasting good library time when I could have been reading "Red
>Planet".
Sibling!
Dorothy J Heydt
Yup.
If I had it all to do over again, knowing what I know now, I
would do a whole lot of things differently, and when it came to
P.E. (I'm thinking of things like basketball and field hockey,
where you could move around) I would get *behind* whoever was
best at the game and shadow her. The ball/whatever would never
come near me, because she would always get it, and I would get
some exercise in the process
David Goldfarb
>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>In article <LLB49...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Note that in elementary
>>>school and high school nobody ever told us the rules for *any*
>>>sport that we were forced to play.
>>
>>Was there anyone besides you who didn't already know them?
>
>did. I got the impression that most of us were just milling
>around and faking it.
I'd say that if a substantial fraction of the class didn't know the
rules, that it would be reasonable to spend class time going over them;
but to do so for the benefit of only one or two people would not.
--
David Goldfarb |"The message sent by [turning 'virus' into]
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |'virii' is, 'i iz a intelekchul cuz i knowz ladin'"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Kennedy, on rec.arts.sf.composition
Kurt Busiek
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> said:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 15:23:37 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And yet, here you and Dorothy are, continuing to discuss something that
>> bores you as an illustration of how much it bores you.
>
> And so are you. There's a sort of pleasing symmetry there, but I'm
> still going to killfile several subthreads.
In my case, I think I'm discussing something that irritates me, which
isn't quite the same as boredom. Or demanding explanations only to fall
all over oneself declaring how much one has no interest in the subject.
But you're certainly right that it's getting repetitive from this
corner, too.
I still wish I had a killfile that would spike posts by someone and
responses to that someone, while leaving the rest of the thread alone.
William Hyde
Our gym faculty could be stupid (with some notable exceptions) but
never as stupid as that. People with serious health problems were sent
to the library during gym class. I once got a wonderful three months
off owing to pneumonia. That was how I realized that gym class wasn't
even making people fit. Once the weakness wore off, I was in no
worse shape than before.
William Hyde