Re: UA - could it be the last book?
Otter t.
> I just finished UA and thought it was well up to SirPt's usual
> standard: highly re-readable.
>
> But he brought in so many earlier characters--only the witches
> are absent, really--that it made me nervous lest it's a signal
> that he plans to quit writing, or quit writing about the DW.
> Admittedly many of chars brought back are in bit parts and in the
> case of Oats offscreen altogether. But it's still worrying.
>
> Is SirPt already working on another, does anyone know? Am I
> being silly for worrying? Anyone have any Views?
>
> A. (Grateful-but-Nervous) Reader
He's presently working on _I Shall Wear Midnight_, which I believe
is a Tiffany Aching book. And he speaks very highly of the dictating
software he's using.
Check the News section at www.paulkidby.com.
Michael J. Schülke
> But he brought in so many earlier characters--only the witches
> are absent, really--that it made me nervous lest it's a signal
> that he plans to quit writing, or quit writing about the DW.
> Admittedly many of chars brought back are in bit parts and in the
> case of Oats offscreen altogether. But it's still worrying.
It sometimes reads like a grand finale, with everyone on stage, doesn't
it?
Still, Mr. Pratchett^W^W Sir Terry has already made public references to
at least three more Discworld novels:
- I Shall Wear Midnight (Tiffany Aching)
- Raising Taxes (Moist von Lipwig)
- Scouting for Trolls
AIUI, I Shall Wear Midnight is already pretty far along; as for the
others, we'll have to see.
Regards,
Michael
Raymond Daley
>I just finished UA and thought it was well up to SirPt's usual
> standard: highly re-readable.
> are absent, really--that it made me nervous lest it's a signal
> that he plans to quit writing, or quit writing about the DW.
> Admittedly many of chars brought back are in bit parts and in the
> case of Oats offscreen altogether. But it's still worrying.
I'm not going to mince my words in this post and might say some or a lot of
things most of you won't like or agree with so some of you might want to
stop reading right now, you can't say you weren't warned. This may contain
spoilers.
Quite frank personal opinion follows.
Last chance to not get annoyed by what I am about to say as its just under
here.
Coming in
5
4
3
2
1
Actually its good that you posted this as I was about to start my own thread
requesting that Terry really should stop writing now.
Its fairly clear from reading UA his heart isn't in it any more, actually
its unfair to say fairly clear when you could use the words painfully
obvious.
The book really dies after about 100 pages (I think I spent at least 150
pages wondering if he was ever going to get anywhere with any of the
characters or storylines) and to be honest the last 50 pages or so is just
filler, he's really just kicking the arse out of it (and quite frankly in my
opinion taking the piss and not even trying to hide the fact he's doing it
either - he actually shoves the fact that he's doing it and you can't stop
him in your face twice with practically blank pages making a joke you know
was coming anyway and that isn't funny when it does), its got a very poor
middle section, the part describing the one and only new football game in
the whole book isn't very well done at all.
The fact he starts reinventing a football ball that had clearly already
existed in 2 previous books can probably be blamed on his embuggerance but
with an assistant who isn't likewise hindered who has access to all the
books as well as the most up to date version of the DW Companion AND the
L-Space site that mistake should have been picked up and corrected before
ever reaching the presses. Surely the proof readers who read this were the
same people reading Fifth Elephant & Jingo? My memory isn't brilliant but I
remember Carrot using an inflatable football that he even calls a football
twice.
All it needed was 1 person with the courage to start a sentance with the
words "Excuse me Terry but the football already exists here" then show him
the relative pages in those books. Is Terry that much of a tyrant to work
for that they are so afraid to contradict him about his work when he's so
clearly in error? Or are they all The Colonal allowing Elvis to indulge in
a few more metaphorical hamburgers as long as he can still produce the goods
on stage?
The book fizzles out with not much of a resolution, its possibly one of the
weakest endings I've ever read from him. Considering its a book about
football theres only 1 match (I'm not going to include the Street match as
it really doesn't count), realistically its a book about the Wizards with a
few minor characters. Football gets a vague mention here and there, and
whoever drew the cover didn't read the book as his ball doesn't match the
description that Nutt & the Dwarf make.
Do yourself and us a favour Terry, stop writing now. I thought you'd done a
bad job on Nation and couldn't get any worse but here you proved me wrong.
Even the annotations and hidden jokes in this book felt like you had your
references books right in front of you, it used to be your jokes felt like
they were off the cuff and out of left field. In UA it got to the point
where I could predict them coming from several pages away and quite
frequently did.
Although your parody of Andrew Marvells "To His Coy Mistress" in Nutts poem
totally caught me off guard and was VERY funny.
I'm not going to apologise for my opinion here because thats all it is, my
opinion. No doubt most of the group will violently & vigorously disagree
with it.
The only thing I am sorry about is that other people let you print this and
didn't have the courage in themselves to correct to you or stop you. Shame
on them I say and they know who they are too with no need to name names.
Danny
> I'm not going to mince my words in this post and might say some or a lot of
> things most of you won't like or agree with so some of you might want to
> stop reading right now, you can't say you weren't warned.
<snip>
>
> Do yourself and us a favour Terry, stop writing now. I thought you'd done a
> bad job on Nation and couldn't get any worse but here you proved me wrong.
Wow. You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but you're going to
find many people who disagree with you, I'm afraid. I thought Nation was
one of Terry's best books - sure, it was quite light on the humour but
the depth of character that Mau has was incredibly well written, given
the sometimes incredibly difficult subject matter.
UA on the other hand is a little more frivolous in subject matter
(apologies to football fans who take it seriously) but it was still a
reasonably enjoyable book and I will definitely enjoy reading it again.
My sincerest apologies that you've not been able to enjoy these last two
books.
Seeya. Danny.
Rgemini
IMO Raymond has expressed a perfectly valid opinion and I can see why he
has done so. I've read UA twice now and after the first time I felt
similarly, although not as strongly.
On re-reading I changed my mind. Although it is a bit formulaic in
places, the story hangs together better than it did on first reading -
there are the usual layers of meaning and humour, handled in masterful
fashion for the most part.
And now a spoiler ...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
S
T
R
E
T
C
H
I
N
G
D
O
W
N
T
H
E
P
A
G
E
...
I'm sure the reinvention of the Football was decided deliberately as it
is so integral to the plot. (As I understand it Pterry's form of
Alzheimers doesn't seem to affect his memory so much as his spatial
awareness, although I could be wrong.) In any case my own view is that
Discworld timelines are subservient to the narrative imperative and if
push comes to shove we can blame the History Monks.
My other conclusion is that the Unseen Academicals that the book is
about are actually the below-stairs staff at UU, more so than the
football team itself. Nutt is a uber-academic in any case, and starts
the book as one who must remain unseen; and the main POV protagonist is
Glenda, the night cook. Unseen by the Faculty at first, but as much a
part of the University as they are. There are other Unseen Academicals
who also play a part of course: Braseneck College.
I think there is a plot fossil in UA though - the whole business about
playing a football match between Braseneck and UU for the right to wear
the Archchancellor's Hat is built up between Vetinari, Ridcully and The
Man Who Was The Dean ... and then ignored completely. I suspect it
belongs to an earlier version of the plot.
Rgemini
Esmeraldus
"Rgemini" <roy...@CAPITALayresonline.LETTERS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:hbfvjd$2eb3$1...@mud.stack.nl...
That's how I understand it.
> My other conclusion is that the Unseen Academicals that the book is about
> are actually the below-stairs staff at UU, more so than the football team
> itself. Nutt is a uber-academic in any case, and starts the book as one
> who must remain unseen; and the main POV protagonist is Glenda, the night
> cook. Unseen by the Faculty at first, but as much a part of the University
> as they are. There are other Unseen Academicals who also play a part of
> course: Braseneck College.
>
> I think there is a plot fossil in UA though - the whole business about
> playing a football match between Braseneck and UU for the right to wear
> the Archchancellor's Hat is built up between Vetinari, Ridcully and The
> Man Who Was The Dean ... and then ignored completely. I suspect it belongs
> to an earlier version of the plot.
It's not ignored. Brazeneck U. gets leveled by the escaped giant chicken
that is a result of the calculating machine malfunction that Ponder quite
visibly anticipates. Professor Turnipseed is a former UU student seduced
away by the Dean, who knows *almost* as much as Ponder, but not quite. Their
"Hex" uses chickens instead of ants, and the former Dean thinks it's better,
but there's a scene in which Ponder notes this fact with interest and says
nothing--foreshadowing the eventual disaster.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
GaryN
news:hbfvjd$2eb3$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> IMO Raymond has expressed a perfectly valid opinion and I can see why
> he has done so. I've read UA twice now and after the first time I felt
> similarly, although not as strongly.
I have to admit that I had similar feelings, although not as strong,
after first reading. But then I still think "Reaper Man" is crap - each
to their own. Re-inventing the football is just narrative
doobreywhatsit and IIRC the football used by Carrot in "Jingo" was
simply an inflated pig's bladder. I'm refraining from putting a spoiler
in here despite the fact that it would prove my point.
What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads of
times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game called
Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American football.
I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere. Does this
mean that the term is actually an oxymoron along the lines of 'military
intelligence'? Does an American football player actually ever kick the
ball?
ITWSBT
Are there any USians in the audience who might explain?
> On re-reading I changed my mind. Although it is a bit formulaic in
> places, the story hangs together better than it did on first reading -
> there are the usual layers of meaning and humour, handled in masterful
> fashion for the most part.
Agreed, I'm reading it for the second time now and seeing the things
that I didn't see on the first 'Oh great, a new Pratchett book' read.
"Nation" I'm still not sure about, it's odd. It's technically good but
I just didn't get it. Maybe that's my failure rather than the author
gary
--
"Send Lawyers, Guns and Money"
Warren Zevon.
James Kuyper
...
> What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads of
> times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game called
> Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American football.
>
> I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
> is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere.
Then American football has at least one advantage over the other kind -
there's some connection between the name and the activity.
Note: while I am while I'm well aware that our usage of the term
"football" is a minority usage in the world as a whole, I still feel a
bit of cognitive dissonance when I read about such things as "bouncing a
football" - something that cannot easily be done with the American version.
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>Rgemini <roy...@CAPITALayresonline.LETTERS.me.uk> wrote in
>news:hbfvjd$2eb3$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>
>> IMO Raymond has expressed a perfectly valid opinion and I can see why
>> he has done so. I've read UA twice now and after the first time I felt
>> similarly, although not as strongly.
>
>I have to admit that I had similar feelings, although not as strong,
>after first reading. But then I still think "Reaper Man" is crap - each
>to their own. Re-inventing the football is just narrative
>doobreywhatsit and IIRC the football used by Carrot in "Jingo" was
>simply an inflated pig's bladder. I'm refraining from putting a spoiler
>in here despite the fact that it would prove my point.
>
>What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads of
>times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game called
>Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American football.
>
>I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
>is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere. Does this
>mean that the term is actually an oxymoron along the lines of 'military
>intelligence'? Does an American football player actually ever kick the
>ball?
>
>ITWSBT
>
>Are there any USians in the audience who might explain?
Although the American football is more frequently carried or thrown,
it *is* kicked occasionally:
1. The kickoff. At the beginning of a game (or after one team has
scored a goal) play is (re)started by both teams lining up near
opposite ends of the field and one team kicking the ball toward the
other team. In this instance, the football is set on a small stand
before being kicked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqFC6Sjy-So
2. The punt. A team that has the ball is given four chances to move it
forward at least ten yards. If a team doesn't think it has a chance of
making that ten yards, and if they are too close to the opponent's
goal line, they may choose to kick the ball down field, in hopes of
keeping the other team farther away from the goal line when they take
posession of the ball. In this version, the football is dropped and
kicked while it's falling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQKHOMHKT00
3. The field goal. This option involves kicking the football between
the uprights of the goal post at the end of the field to score extra
points. One player braces the football on the ground while another
player kicks it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih2wYN8eEl4
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlzVDDSfeeA
-Chris Zakes
Texas
They began to plan people's lives and libraries; they began to instruct and push
about the very people who had come to Mars to get away from being instructed
and ruled and pushed about.
And it was inevitable that some of those people pushed back...
-Ray Bradbury, "The Martian Chronicles"
Robert Carnegie
> I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
> is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere. Does this
> mean that the term is actually an oxymoron along the lines of 'military
> intelligence'? Does an American football player actually ever kick the
> ball?
No, Lucy always pulls it away and Charlie Brown misses the kick and
turns a somersault and lands sore.
Before
<http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/
detail_PEA0334__9__peanutsnever_htm.html>
After
<http://hippiekiller.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/lucy-and-the-football/>
GaryN
news:hbhda1$6rc$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> GaryN wrote:
> ...
>> What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads
>> of times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game
>> called Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American
>> football.
>>
>> I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the
>> ball is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere.
>
> Then American football has at least one advantage over the other kind
> - there's some connection between the name and the activity.
How so? Maybe I'm being thick but I fail to see the logic here.
> Note: while I am while I'm well aware that our usage of the term
> "football" is a minority usage in the world as a whole, I still feel a
> bit of cognitive dissonance when I read about such things as "bouncing
> a football" - something that cannot easily be done with the American
> version.
Ummmmm, that's because it's a rugby ball and they're not really designed
to be kicked[1]. They do bounce quite well but often in unpredictable
directions.
Cognitive dissonance reminds me of a bar in a William Gibson book,
although I don't recall which one, in which there is a bar called
Cognitive Dissidents. Sorry but I can't be arsed to look through them
to find out - might be "All Tomorrow's Parties".
gary
[1]Unless you happen to be JW in the last 30 seconds of the rugby world
cup.
--
"I really like this jacket
but the sleeves are much too long"
Motorhead - 'Back At The Funny Farm'.
GaryN
news:41jod51tvi9tgevj0...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> 2. The punt. A team that has the ball is given four chances to move it
> forward at least ten yards. If a team doesn't think it has a chance of
> making that ten yards, and if they are too close to the opponent's
> goal line, they may choose to kick the ball down field, in hopes of
> keeping the other team farther away from the goal line when they take
> posession of the ball. In this version, the football is dropped and
> kicked while it's falling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQKHOMHKT00
"If they are too close to the opponents goal line" This bit I really
don't understand. How can you be too close to the opponents goal line -
that's the whole damn point!
> 3. The field goal. This option involves kicking the football between
> the uprights of the goal post at the end of the field to score extra
> points. One player braces the football on the ground while another
> player kicks it.
We do it differently in rugby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5tHgET4N4
I was actually sat in the pub with the rest of the Studio Theatre Club
preparing for the Matinee performance of Monstrous Regiment when this
happened. We were quite noisy (but we turned in a damn good
performance...)
Thanks for trying to explain Chris, although I'm still not sure that I
understand:-)
gary
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> They began to plan people's lives and libraries; they began to
> instruct and push about the very people who had come to Mars to get
> away from being instructed and ruled and pushed about.
> And it was inevitable that some of those people pushed back...
>
> -Ray Bradbury, "The Martian Chronicles"
>
--
Large Dave
> I'm not going to mince my words in this post
< Snip negative comments>
As others have said, that is your view. However posting such comments
to alt.FAN.pratchett could be considered as an activity more suited to
those of a trollish persuasion.
Detritus would not be pleased.
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:41jod51tvi9tgevj0...@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>> 2. The punt. A team that has the ball is given four chances to move it
>> forward at least ten yards. If a team doesn't think it has a chance of
>> making that ten yards, and if they are too close to the opponent's
>> goal line, they may choose to kick the ball down field, in hopes of
>> keeping the other team farther away from the goal line when they take
>> posession of the ball. In this version, the football is dropped and
>> kicked while it's falling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQKHOMHKT00
>
>"If they are too close to the opponents goal line" This bit I really
>don't understand. How can you be too close to the opponents goal line -
>that's the whole damn point!
Sorry, make that "too close to the goal line the opponent is trying to
reach."
I'm not sure how rugby is played, but in American football, things are
pretty structured. After the initial kickoff, a player from the other
team usually catches the ball and tries to run it past the goal line.
When he's tackled, everything stops, and a marker is put at the edge
of the field, marking where the ball was at the time of the tackle.
At this point, the team with the ball has four chances to move the
ball ten yards. The players line up, the ball is hiked to the
quarterback who either runs with it, hands it off to another player to
run with it, or throws it to another player. Once the player with the
ball is tackled (or the pass is not caught--i.e. "incomplete")
everything stops, they line up where the ball was when tackled (or at
the initial position if it's an incomplete pass) and try again. If, at
the end of four tries, the ball has not been moved the requisite ten
yards, the other team takes posession and tries to move it ten yards
in the opposite direction. (If they *have* gone ten yards, things
reset at that point, and they try for another ten.)
So... if the ball is, say, twenty or thirty yards from the goal line
the opponent is trying to reach, it's generally considered sound
tactics to punt it, in hopes of getting it farther away from that goal
line.
>> 3. The field goal. This option involves kicking the football between
>> the uprights of the goal post at the end of the field to score extra
>> points. One player braces the football on the ground while another
>> player kicks it.
>
>We do it differently in rugby
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5tHgET4N4
Just out of curiosity, it appeared that the ball hit the ground just
as the player kicked it. Is it required that the ball hit the ground
before it may be kicked, or did it just happen that way in that
particular situation?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers at night
May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright.
James Kuyper
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:hbhda1$6rc$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>> ...
>>> What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads
>>> of times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game
>>> called Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American
>>> football.
>>>
>>> I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the
>>> ball is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere.
My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were
describing Rugby, about which I know very little. I didn't realize that
your comment was intended as a description of American football, because
it's a poor match to reality. Kicking the football is an important part
of American football. There's also a lot of throwing and carrying of the
ball, but it would be a very different game without the kicking.
I say this as someone who is not a fan of either game, or, for that
matter, any sport.
Jonathan Ellis
"Chris Zakes" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:il5qd5tkhcro3eiqg...@4ax.com...
> Just out of curiosity, it appeared that the ball hit the ground just
> as the player kicked it. Is it required that the ball hit the ground
> before it may be kicked, or did it just happen that way in that
> particular situation?
Yes. You can't score with a punt, it has to be a drop-kick so the ball has
to touch the ground just as or before the player kicks it. Hence the term
"drop-goal".
It's something that's actually a lot harder to achieve than it looks,
because of the tendency of the ball to bounce in odd ways. There's four
kinds of score in rugby:
(1) the "try" (5 points). Known to you in American football as a touchdown,
except that - unlike in American football - the ball must actually be
touched down over the line, by the player holding it: if he crosses the line
but is prevented from actually grounding the ball in hand, no score. Called
a "try" because, in the original game, it scored no points at all but gave
the scoring side a free shot at "goal" (see below.
(2) the "conversion" or "goal" (2 points). After a try is scored, the
scoring side gets a place-kick attempt (originally, the kicker would kick a
hole in the ground and set the ball up in it: nowadays you're far more
likely to see a kicking tee used, to stand the ball on its end), to put the
ball over the bar between the posts. Similar to that in gridiron after a
touchdown, except you don't have to pass it back to the kicker, or get
someone else to hold it, and the defending side aren't allowed to try and
charge it down - the ball gets put on the ground, directly backward from the
point where the try was scored (hence the fact that it's better to score a
try between the posts than in the corner, because the angle is much better.)
Technically the "goal" is the combination of the try and conversion.
(3) The "penalty goal" (3 points) A straight place-kick at goal, from the
point where a defined "major or deliberate offence" took place. Similar to
the attempt to convert a try: a simple teed-up placekick, opposition cannot
charge it down. (The side awarded the penalty, if they do not think the
kicker could score from that distance or that angle, has the option of
kicking to touch and taking the throw-in themselves: normally if one side
kicks the ball out, it's the other side that gets the throw-in. A third
option is to take a "scrum" - which is usually the penalty for "minor or
accidental" offences - this is usually done because the attacking side
thinks that they could score a try from it, and get 5 or 7 points rather
than the lesser 3 from a penalty.)
(4) The "drop-goal" (3 points). As described above, can be scored from
anywhere on the field, by anyone, with a drop-kick (the ball has to touch
the ground just before being kicked). Normally there's only one or two
players on the team who are any good at this, and it's not easy: very rarely
is it achieved more than once or sometimes twice in an international.
England's Jonny Wilkinson, I believe, holds the current record number for a
career, though the record in a match is 5 by J. De Beer of South Africa
(Wilkinson being, as far as I know, the only other player to score three in
one match.) Another England kicker, Rob Andrew, also used to make a habit of
scoring them. The most usual reason to attempt a drop-goal is (1) having had
a lot of possession near the opposition line but not really looking like
breaking through (even if the drop-goal attempt is missed, it may panic the
opposition into trying just that bit too hard to guard against the
possibility by charging down the kicker, either leaving gaps in their
defence elsewhere so the attacking side have a better chance of a try next
time, or encroaching offside and giving away a penalty), or (2) the scores
being very close in the last minute.
Of course, in original rugby parlance back in the 1800s, a goal was a goal
was a goal: a penalty counted the same as a dropgoal, counted the same as a
converted try (and there was no score for the try itself, only if it was
"converted" to an actual score.) Then someone decided that there ought to be
some points for the try at least... hence the fact that now every goal
counted 3 points, and an un-converted try counted as 1/3 of a goal (hence
the value of a conversion kick at 2.) Since then, the rules of rugby get
changed again and again, so does the scoring system, until now we have a
situation where you get as many as 5 points for even an unconverted "try"...
Rugby League - again a different set of rules but with similar principles -
still has 4 points for the try (which was the case in Rugby Union from the
1970s up till 1993), 2 for the conversion, but only 2 for a penalty and 1
for the drop-goal. And there are other rule differences too, and only 13
players a side, and a whole lot of other minor differences...
but the crucial thing about rugby, both league and union, is: you can pass
the ball any time, provided it does NOT go forwards from a pass from hand:
backwards, sideways or diagonally (backwards) is allowed, but if the ball
goes so much as 1 inch forwards over 20 yards sideways, it's a "forward
pass" and thus an offence (deemed to be accidental, therefore the punishment
is a scrum rather than a penalty). The ball can be *kicked* forwards, but
then only the kicker or people who were "behind" him are allowed to chase
the kick, unless the opposition get the ball and run at least 10 yeards with
it: anyone in front of the kicker is "offside" and not allowed to chase the
kick until they're put back "on-side" by the kicker running past them.
--Jonathan.
erinnish.AT.gmail.dot.com
wrote:
> "A.Reader" <anonymou...@example.com> wrote
>
>
> The fact he starts reinventing a football ball that had clearly already
> existed in 2 previous books can probably be blamed on his embuggerance but
> with an assistant who isn't likewise hindered who has access to all the
> books as well as the most up to date version of the DW Companion AND the
> L-Space site that mistake should have been picked up and corrected before
> ever reaching the presses. Surely the proof readers who read this were the
> same people reading Fifth Elephant & Jingo? My memory isn't brilliant but I
> remember Carrot using an inflatable football that he even calls a football
> twice.
The game of football exists before it is 'reinvented' in UA, though,
it's just that the rules and the ball that is used are somewhat
different and more thuggish, played on the streets. There's no
internal inconsistency in the book, and I don't think it is
inconsistent with Carrot bringing out a football and starting a game
in Jingo and Fifth Elephant - we can surely assume it's the more ur-
football, the earlier version, which is being played. You'll recall in
Jingo there were indications that it was quite a thuggish game of
football - less bloody than the war it replaced, but nevertheless not
quite the same game as is evolved in UA. Surely we can concede of a
football that does not engage the twin bladders developed in UA in the
earlier books? As an Australian, to be honest, my mental image of the
football used in the earlier books was more along the lines of an AFL
ball. The new ball is much, much lighter and promotes a more skillful,
faster game that is a bit less about the injuries. I actually think
it's quite horrendously offensive for you to point to what is not even
clearly an inconsistency as evidence of Mr. Pratchett's embuggerance.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, however insensitive, as I
am to mine. In my opinion, Terry is still one of the best writers
around, still writes an amzing novel - like anyone else, I have
favourite books and books which I enjoyed less than the others, but I
think they're all of a phenomenally high standard and will be very
disappointed when the day comes, as it does with any writer, that
there are no more new books to savour.
As for all the 'considering it's a game about football there's only
one match' comments you made, I'd have been more disappointed in a
formulaic, Mighty-Ducks-style blow-by-blow, team comes good plot line.
I think Terry may be making a point there about how little football
culture necessaruly has to do with the games being played, although I
could quite possibly be wrong.
>>Do yourself and us a favour Terry, stop writing now.
Poor use of the collective noun, sir, since I think you are largely
speaking for yourself. I am sorry indeed that you did not enjoy the
last two books - I enjoyed them immensely. Small Gods, Interesting
Times and Night Watch are probably still my absolute favourite
Discworld novels, but UA and Nation were not, in my opinion, some sort
of indication that Terry should stop doing what he enjoys, and what
still makes not only his old fanbase (I've been around since I read
the Bromeliad Trilogy, then Mort in Primary School - more than a
decade ago) happy, but also engages and surprises new readers. I
still look forward to the latest Discworld and know when I see it on
the bookstore shelves that it is going to be an engaging read. Sure, I
won't say I don't quietly hope for another book that moves me the way
Night Watch did, but I certainly didn't think, when I picked up UA,
that this was too much to hope for. It saddens me that Terry has, (and
continues to, IMHO) written so well that the expectations of his
fanbase are very high, to the extent that when some fans don't find a
new book completely and totally amazing, they feel the need to write
reviews such as the one you have provided, out of disappointment -
neglecting to notice that, embuggerance or no, PTerry is still one of
the best people writing today.
I'm sorry if anyone is offended by the way I have expressed this -
it's been a long week and I've been away from afp and usenet for some
time. I just felt that I couldn't leave Mr. Daley's remarks
unresponded to.
Regards,
Erin
GaryN
news:hbk402$7vs$1...@aioe.org:
I would add to Jonathan's accurate summation that there are rules about
kicking the ball into touch, which is of relevance as we are talking
about kicking the ball (and also because I used to be a full back).
Inside your own 22 yard line you may kick the ball cleanly over the side
line and the lineout will be where the touchjudge judges the ball to
have crossed the line.
Outside your own 22 kicking the ball straight into touch results in the
lineout being held on the closest side of the field at the point that
you kicked it from.
If, outside your own 22, you manage an accurate kick that results in the
ball landing on the field, but subsequently bouncing off the field, the
lineout will be held at that point.
There is also a restart after a failed try or a grounding (defensive
move where you ground the ball in your own area to prevent the
opposition getting to it) which is called a "22" which is basically a
drop kick from your own defensive area, the ball being required to touch
the ground before being kicked.
Oh, and you are allowed to 'chip' the ball over your opponents[1] but if
you happen to run into a loose ball and kick it ahead of yourself
that'll be a "Knock On"
I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
gary
[1]The famous "Up and Under".
jester
<ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
<hack>
>Oh, and you are allowed to 'chip' the ball over your opponents[1] but if
>you happen to run into a loose ball and kick it ahead of yourself
>that'll be a "Knock On"
I thought kicking it on was the one thing your *are* allowed to do (i.e.
feet and legs only) without it being a knock on.
--
Andy Brown
The software said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux
Kevin Wells
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>Outside your own 22 kicking the ball straight into touch results in the
>lineout being held on the closest side of the field at the point that
>you kicked it from.
>
Also if you run the ball inside your 22 and kick it straight out that
counts as kicking out from outside your 22, but if you pass it back to a
team mate inside the 22, he can kick it straight out.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
More flick able than a bogie during double maths
Nigel Stapley
> On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, GaryN
> <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
> <hack>
>> Oh, and you are allowed to 'chip' the ball over your opponents[1] but if
>> you happen to run into a loose ball and kick it ahead of yourself
>> that'll be a "Knock On"
>
> I thought kicking it on was the one thing your *are* allowed to do (i.e.
> feet and legs only) without it being a knock on.
>
Yes, that threw me too, along with the assertion that a 'drop-goal' can
only be scored by kicking the ball *once it has touched the ground*,
something that would be near to impossible with a ball of that shape. I
always thought that a drop-goal was kicked from the hand *without* it
touching the ground.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
jester
Nope, if it doesn't hit the ground, it doesn't count.
The trick is to make contact with your foot just as the ball touches the
ground. It's not easy, but doable with practice.
--
Andy Brown
To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has been encrypted
using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption.
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
(massage snippage)
>I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
>
>gary
Are you talking about american football, or rugby (which *is*
played--at least on the collegiate level*--in the US)?
What's a blood substitute? Plasma? Some kind of genetically modified
fluid? A direct relative of the player being substituted?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
*A common bumper sticker when I was in college was "Give blood--play
rugby."
Larry Moore
> "A.Reader" <anony...@example.com> wrote
>>I just finished UA and thought it was well up to SirPt's usual
>> standard: highly re-readable.
>> But he brought in so many earlier characters--only the witches
>> are absent, really--that it made me nervous lest it's a signal
>> that he plans to quit writing, or quit writing about the DW.
>> Admittedly many of chars brought back are in bit parts and in the
>> case of Oats offscreen altogether. But it's still worrying.
>
> I'm not going to mince my words in this post and might say some or a lot of
> things most of you won't like or agree with so some of you might want to
> stop reading right now, you can't say you weren't warned. This may contain
> spoilers.
>
Mileage varies, of course. I shall re-read UA even though, in
the roundworld, I have no interest in any ball-sport.
I'm more assured by UA that 'I Shall Wear Midnight' will be worth
waiting for.
After that, I want to see how PTerry manages to say something new
about taxation without trespassing on Heinlein..
Some OP on the other group said that the name of the next (3rd) book
after would be 'Scouting for Trolls.' I have no idea if he was
having us on or not :-)
--
Location: 43 58 8 N by 80 58 45 W
Growing zone: lowest 48-hour temperature -25C
Built: 1835 Renovations: 1910, 1952, 2006.
Kevin Wells
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>
>(massage snippage)
>
>>I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
>>
>>gary
>
>Are you talking about american football, or rugby (which *is*
>played--at least on the collegiate level*--in the US)?
>
>What's a blood substitute? Plasma? Some kind of genetically modified
>fluid? A direct relative of the player being substituted?
>
If a player has an injury which causes bleeding, he can be replaced for
upto 10 minutes, without it counting as a substitute.
You are only allowed so many substitutes in a game of rugby.
You have the infamous Harlequins incident which led to 3 year ban for
their director of rugby.
Why do journalist add the word gate to every scandal these days.
Watergate was known as Watergate because that was the name of the place.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
When all else fails twat it with a hammer.
Ferd Burfle
That's what makes American Football interesting: the damned oblate
spheroid will not behave.
-Ferd Burfle
--
Poop, once slung, can never be unslung. Given enough time, it will
decorate the slinger.
Ferd Burfle
I think he meant to say "Too close to your own goal-line," so that you
want to move the ball back away from it.
steveski
> James Kuyper wrote:
>> GaryN wrote:
>> ...
>>> What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads of
>>> times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game called
>>> Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American football.
>>> I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
>>> is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere.
>>
>> Then American football has at least one advantage over the other kind -
>> there's some connection between the name and the activity.
>>
>> Note: while I am while I'm well aware that our usage of the term
>> "football" is a minority usage in the world as a whole, I still feel a
>> bit of cognitive dissonance when I read about such things as "bouncing a
>> football" - something that cannot easily be done with the American
>> version.
>
> That's what makes American Football interesting: the damned oblate
> spheroid will not behave.
Sorry, Roc . . . er - Fred, but it's the other way round with an oblate
spheroid. The polar axis is the short one and the equatorial plane is
larger cf. the planet Jupiter . . .
--
Steveski
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In message <53esd5lrrburcpfe9q0o98cr5k83fcf...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>
> >(massage snippage)
>
> >>I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
>
> >>gary
>
> >Are you talking about american football, or rugby (which *is*
> >played--at least on the collegiate level*--in the US)?
>
> >What's a blood substitute? Plasma? Some kind of genetically modified
> >fluid? A direct relative of the player being substituted?
>
> If a player has an injury which causes bleeding, he can be replaced for
> upto 10 minutes, without it counting as a substitute.
>
> You are only allowed so many substitutes in a game of rugby.
>
> You have the infamous Harlequins incident which led to 3 year ban for
> their director of rugby.
>
>
> Why do journalist add the word gate to every scandal these days.
>
> Watergate was known as Watergate because that was the name of the place.
Yeah, but mostly in fact the place was the White House.
I'm not sure if "Whitewatergate" of 1992 was the case that opened the
floodgate, so that the suffix "-gate" means "The Publicly Famous
Scandal Of". 1992 also gave Britain "Squidgygate", re the Princess of
Wales. It may have become current very quickly.
Last night channel Dave repeated a _Mock the Week_ in which comedian
Hugh Dennis talked about cycling in an "open" stage of the Tour de
France - a large public event on the same route as the proper
athletes' race but on a different day - and said that obviously the
proper race's winner went /much/ faster than he himself did, but
turned out to be "using someone else's blood" - that is, I suppose, he
had received a blood transfusion to improve his performance, which
isn't allowed. There have been Tour de France scandals since the
contest was invented, and as that was long before Watergate and the
French don't like imported words very much I suppose they call it
something else.
GaryN
news:slrnhdrubd...@angel.jester.nu:
> On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, GaryN
> <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
> <hack>
>>Oh, and you are allowed to 'chip' the ball over your opponents[1] but if
>>you happen to run into a loose ball and kick it ahead of yourself
>>that'll be a "Knock On"
>
> I thought kicking it on was the one thing your *are* allowed to do (i.e.
> feet and legs only) without it being a knock on.
>
If you do it *deliberately* it's acceptable, but if the ball leaves one
player's hands and lands at the feet of another player who can't help
running into it that may be regarded as a knock on. Strange but true and
it'll depend on the referee's opinion.
gary
GaryN
news:b1f879ad...@talktalk.net:
> In message <53esd5lrrburcpfe9...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>>GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>>
>>(massage snippage)
>>
>>>I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
>>>
>>>gary
>>
>>Are you talking about american football, or rugby (which *is*
>>played--at least on the collegiate level*--in the US)?
>>
>>What's a blood substitute? Plasma? Some kind of genetically modified
>>fluid? A direct relative of the player being substituted?
>>
>
>
> If a player has an injury which causes bleeding, he can be replaced
> for upto 10 minutes, without it counting as a substitute.
Whilst the injured player is being patched/sewn up to stop the bleeding.
It's not often that the injured player fails to retake the field
although in cases of broken arms sticking out through the skin a total
substitution is made. Minor details like scalp wounds, ears partially
torn off, or split lips and lost teeth are usually fixed within the
required time.
In the end it's a violent game and no body armour is worn - back when I
could still sprint without stopping for breath every 10 yards I broke my
collar bone and dislocated the winger's knee in a tackle (but we won the
match, even if I did have to hear about it later).
I found this as a good guide to kicking in rugby.
http://www.talkrugbyunion.co.uk/guides/rugby_union_skills_the_art_of_kic
king.html
A good kick can win the match, particularly the cross field kick where
your winger on the far side of the field takes the ball when he's
travelling at full speed. Needs damn good accuracy and coordination but
a fast winger coming from an unexpected direction is almost impossible
to stop.
gary
Lee
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if "Whitewatergate" of 1992 was the case that opened the
> floodgate, so that the suffix "-gate" means "The Publicly Famous
> Scandal Of". 1992 also gave Britain "Squidgygate", re the Princess of
> Wales. It may have become current very quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix
says started in 1970's
The "calvin & hobbes" comic from 11th april 1988 refers to "bedtimegate"
and "home-workgate" so it was certainly in use by then.
--
Lee
Chris Zakes
caused Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> to write:
>In message <53esd5lrrburcpfe9...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Oct 2009 12:29:46 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>>GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>>
>>(massage snippage)
>>
>>>I'll bet that USian teams dont even have blood substitutes...:-)
>>>
>>>gary
>>
>>Are you talking about american football, or rugby (which *is*
>>played--at least on the collegiate level*--in the US)?
>>
>>What's a blood substitute? Plasma? Some kind of genetically modified
>>fluid? A direct relative of the player being substituted?
>>
>
>
>If a player has an injury which causes bleeding, he can be replaced for
>upto 10 minutes, without it counting as a substitute.
>
>You are only allowed so many substitutes in a game of rugby.
>
>You have the infamous Harlequins incident which led to 3 year ban for
>their director of rugby.
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/6047832/Dean-Richards-ban-how-Bloodgate-saga-unfolded.html>
Ah. By that standard, American football is *much* more wimpy. Players
can be substituted pretty much any time between plays. Kickers, for
example, are typically only used during a kickoff or field goal
attempt, and most teams have a completely different set of players for
offense and defense.
>Why do journalist add the word gate to every scandal these days.
>
>Watergate was known as Watergate because that was the name of the place.
The original Watergate scandal was big enough (at least in the US) to
become a national icon. Thus, adding the suffix -gate to something
automatically means it's a scandal of some sort.
It's like adding -thon (from the original "marathon") to something to
mean it's a long-running event: telethon, dance-a-thon, etc.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Nigel Stapley
And the Cecil Parkinson affair
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Parkinson#In_government) was known
in some circles as 'Daughtergate".
Esmeraldus
There's a review of UA on Tor.com:
http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=58099
It's a positive review, and it pretty much agrees, in mich more detail, with
what I said here a few days ago, so I agree with the review. ;-)
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Brett Paul Dunbar
<dont...@gmail.com> writes
The funny thing is that although it is standard practice to punt on the
fourth down, it isn't actually sound tactically most of the time. The
expected payoff from going for it is usually greater than the expected
payoff from punting, despite this the vast majority of the time they
actually punt. As the economist David Romer discovered in this paper
<http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf>
[...]
This paper shows, however, that teams' choices on fourth downs
depart in a way that is systematic and overwhelmingly
statistically significant from the choices that would maximize
their chances of winning. One case in which the departure is
particularly striking and relatively easy to see arises when a
team faces fourth down and goal on its opponent's 2-yard line
early in the game. In this situation, attempting a field goal is
virtually certain to produce 3 points, while trying for a
touchdown has about a three-sevenths chance of producing 7
points. The two choices thus have essentially the same expected
immediate payoff. But if the team tries for a touchdown and
fails, its opponent typically gains possession of the ball on
the 2-yard line; if the team scores a touchdown or a field goal,
on the other hand, the opponent returns a kickoff, which is
considerably better for it. Thus trying for a touchdown on
average leaves the opponent in considerably worse field
position. I show later that rational risk aversion about points
scored, concern about momentum, and other complications do not
noticeably affect the case for trying for a touchdown. As a
result, my estimates imply that the team should be indifferent
between the two choices if the probability of scoring a
touchdown is about 18 percent. They also imply that trying for a
touchdown rather than a field goal would increase the team's
chances of winning the game by about three percentage points,
which is very large for a single play. In fact, however, teams
attempted a field goal all nine times in my sample they were in
this position.
[...]
One school team Pulaski Academy took note of this and has had good
results with a more aggressive approach to fourth downs.
<http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/when-economists-talk-pu
laski-academy-listens/>
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address
Anery
>
<snip>
> I wish Tamar were still writing here - she could have said this
> so much better than I did.
>
Have you found out why she stopped contributing to abp?
I miss her posts as well.
Anery
Anery
> There's a review of UA on Tor.com:http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=58099
>
> It's a positive review, and it pretty much agrees, in mich more detail, with
> what I said here a few days ago, so I agree with the review. ;-)
>
I'm especially curious about Mister Nutt. I'm just re-reading "The
Lord of the Rings" (for the first time in English - it's quite a big
difference!) and the attitude of Tolkien towards the orcs as the whole
species is one of the things I find rather bothersome. As well as the
whole classism thing.
I was a bit puzzled by the article calling the Dean Ridcully's "best
friend", though. Ridcully never even called him by name in the
previous books.
It reminded me of the quote from G!G!:"Noble dragons don't have
friends. The nearest they can get to the idea is an enemy who is still
alive."
Anery
Bob Larter
> After that, I want to see how PTerry manages to say something new
> about taxation without trespassing on Heinlein..
As Lipwig is my favourite of the newer characters, I'm rather looking
forward to that one.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Anne
> Raymond Daley wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to mince my words in this post
> < Snip negative comments>
>
> As others have said, that is your view. However posting such comments
> to alt.FAN.pratchett could be considered as an activity more suited to
> those of a trollish persuasion.
>
> Detritus would not be pleased.
I guess I don't agree with this. I liked Nation, and I haven't read UA,
so I don't know that I agree with Raymond's opinion. But if he is
right, then it needs to be said, and who could know but fans?
It has happened - Agatha Christie plainly was not capable of writing
books that hung together for several years before her death, but
apparently she didn't know it. Maybe no one had the nerve to tell her.
Emma Anne
> the abomination known as American football.
It is extremely unfortunate that American football is *called*
"football" since it leads to much confusion. But American football is
an awesome game, and I can't be having with calling it an abomination.
Larry Moore
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> After that, I want to see how PTerry manages to say something new
>> about taxation without trespassing on Heinlein..
>
> As Lipwig is my favourite of the newer characters, I'm rather looking
> forward to that one.
>
According to the paulkidby.com site, 'Midnight' is an active project
but there's no word how far along 'Taxes' is.
I'll buy and read 'Taxes' and expect to enjoy it as much as you.
But if 'Midnight' is as enjoyable as the rest of the Tiffany saga.
I shall be content.
GaryN
emma...@mac.com:
You can because I did.
In a democratic society my opinion is as valid as yours and my opinion is
that American Football is an abomination and should not be called football.
Because it's *NOT* football.
I accept that your opinions may be different to mine. You may express them
differently, or in different ways (I have been known to be a little, shall
we say 'forthright') but we are each entitled to our own.
James Kuyper
...
> that American Football is an abomination and should not be called football.
>
> Because it's *NOT* football.
Is that the reason for both assertions, or just the latter one? Would
you consider it just as much of abomination if it was called Armball?
Free Lunch
alt.books.pratchett:
I wonder if it still isn't a lot safer than American football. The
problem with the body armor is that it allows more reckless behavior
with less added risk. How common are concussions in rugby?
Free Lunch
alt.books.pratchett:
>emma...@mac.com (Emma Anne) wrote in news:1j7zfij.rgw4y2pwxgy9N%
>emma...@mac.com:
>
>> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the abomination known as American football.
>>
>> It is extremely unfortunate that American football is *called*
>> "football" since it leads to much confusion. But American football is
>> an awesome game, and I can't be having with calling it an abomination.
>
>You can because I did.
>
>In a democratic society my opinion is as valid as yours and my opinion is
>that American Football is an abomination and should not be called football.
>
>Because it's *NOT* football.
>
>I accept that your opinions may be different to mine. You may express them
>differently, or in different ways (I have been known to be a little, shall
>we say 'forthright') but we are each entitled to our own.
>
>gary
Somehow I think you might be even more offended if we called it American
Rugby.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On 23 Oct 2009 14:32:28 GMT, GaryN <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote in
> alt.books.pratchett:
>
>
>
>
>
> >emma_a...@mac.com (Emma Anne) wrote in news:1j7zfij.rgw4y2pwxgy9N%
> >emma_a...@mac.com:
>
> >> GaryN <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
> >>> the abomination known as American football.
>
> >> It is extremely unfortunate that American football is *called*
> >> "football" since it leads to much confusion. But American football is
> >> an awesome game, and I can't be having with calling it an abomination.
>
> >You can because I did.
>
> >In a democratic society my opinion is as valid as yours and my opinion is
> >that American Football is an abomination and should not be called football.
>
> >Because it's *NOT* football.
>
> >I accept that your opinions may be different to mine. You may express them
> >differently, or in different ways (I have been known to be a little, shall
> >we say 'forthright') but we are each entitled to our own.
>
> >gary
>
> Somehow I think you might be even more offended if we called it American
> Rugby.
It's certainly worth a try. ("Worth a try!" I slay me!) Having said
that, Wikipedia indicates there are three U.S. states with a Rugby,
although whether there is much to any of them is not instantly clear.
So what /would/ be an appropriate name, if "ball" /and/ "abomination"
are off the list?
"Alabama No-Ball"?
Kevin Wells
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
I call it Rugby for wimps.
The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is motorcycle
racing.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Bring me my arrows of desire!
ppint. at pplay
- tamar's isp/newsservice ceased carrying the "alt"
hierarchy sometime last [?] year; she did propose
that a rec.arts.sf.pratchett (or similar) (.fandom.?)
newsfroup be started, to make it possible for the ab-
solutely N merkins in, or about to find themselves in
the same fix to be able to continue pratchettian dis-
course: i don't believe there was much in the way of
response to her suggestion.
- hth, hand; tdwsc!
- love, a ppint. trusting that's the only/main reason
--
"...and then, because she's blonde, i thought, "we'll kill her.""
- lindsay davis, "book club"
on radio4, 16:20 bst 8/6/06 (6/8/06 for merkins)
Richard Bos
> caused Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> to write:
>
> >If a player has an injury which causes bleeding, he can be replaced for
> >upto 10 minutes, without it counting as a substitute.
> >
> >You are only allowed so many substitutes in a game of rugby.
> Ah. By that standard, American football is *much* more wimpy. Players
> can be substituted pretty much any time between plays. Kickers, for
> example, are typically only used during a kickoff or field goal
> attempt, and most teams have a completely different set of players for
> offense and defense.
Seriously, Chris, even by wussy Dutch Complete Football standards,
gridiron is much more wimpy than any kind of old-world football you can
name. You won't catch a _real_ football player wearing shoulder pads on
the field, except perhaps Mr. Beckham after his missus has had a go at
him.
Richard
Richard Bos
> (4) The "drop-goal" (3 points). As described above, can be scored from
> anywhere on the field, by anyone, with a drop-kick (the ball has to touch
> the ground just before being kicked). Normally there's only one or two
> players on the team who are any good at this, and it's not easy: very rarely
> is it achieved more than once or sometimes twice in an international.
> England's Jonny Wilkinson, I believe, holds the current record number for a
> career, though the record in a match is 5 by J. De Beer of South Africa
> (Wilkinson being, as far as I know, the only other player to score three in
> one match.) Another England kicker, Rob Andrew, also used to make a habit of
> scoring them. The most usual reason to attempt a drop-goal is (1) having had
> a lot of possession near the opposition line but not really looking like
> breaking through (even if the drop-goal attempt is missed, it may panic the
> opposition into trying just that bit too hard to guard against the
> possibility by charging down the kicker, either leaving gaps in their
> defence elsewhere so the attacking side have a better chance of a try next
> time, or encroaching offside and giving away a penalty), or (2) the scores
> being very close in the last minute.
Or, with the English team most often, (3) having nobody on your team
worth speaking of except aforementioned Mr. Jonny "One-kick Pony"
Wilkinson.
Richard
Richard Bos
> "A.Reader" <anony...@example.com> wrote
> >I just finished UA and thought it was well up to SirPt's usual
> > standard: highly re-readable.
> > But he brought in so many earlier characters--only the witches
> > are absent, really--that it made me nervous lest it's a signal
> > that he plans to quit writing, or quit writing about the DW.
> > Admittedly many of chars brought back are in bit parts and in the
> > case of Oats offscreen altogether. But it's still worrying.
>
> I'm not going to mince my words in this post and might say some or a lot of
> things most of you won't like or agree with so some of you might want to
> stop reading right now, you can't say you weren't warned. This may contain
> spoilers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quite frank personal opinion follows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Last chance to not get annoyed by what I am about to say as its just under
> here.
>
> Considering its a book about football theres only 1 match
Well done - this must be a record. People criticising a book they
haven't read with a great deal of attention I've come across before.
People writing a dust cover blurb without having read a book at all,
that happens all the time. But criticising a book when you clearly
haven't even read the single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory
sentence by the author printed on the back of the dust cover? That is
probably a first.
> Do yourself and us a favour Terry, stop writing now.
Do the rest of us a favour, Raymond, and start learning to read.
Richard
Richard Bos
> I'm especially curious about Mister Nutt. I'm just re-reading "The
> Lord of the Rings" (for the first time in English - it's quite a big
> difference!) and the attitude of Tolkien towards the orcs as the whole
> species is one of the things I find rather bothersome. As well as the
> whole classism thing.
Well, to be fair, he wasn't out to write a philosophical tract about the
treatment of people. He was writing an epic, and being intentionally
old-fashioned about it. It's not as if Grendel is shown in a very
nuanced light in Beowulf, either; and the attitude of Arthurian knights
towards the lower classes is rarely shown, if at all, as anything but
condescending. In other words, Tolkien was not writing from the soul; he
was writing in genre.
Richard
James Kuyper
> Anery <vsp...@atlas.cz> wrote:
>
>> I'm especially curious about Mister Nutt. I'm just re-reading "The
>> Lord of the Rings" (for the first time in English - it's quite a big
>> difference!) and the attitude of Tolkien towards the orcs as the whole
I assume you're referring to the attitude, implicit throughout his work,
that the orcs were irredeemably evil.
>> ... As well as the
>> whole classism thing.
I'm in agreement with you there; he grew up in an England that was
substantially more classist than it is today, and made no apparent
effort to resist that classism. Indeed, he enthusiastically embraced, in
his novels, the still greater levels of classist attitudes that were
typical of much older times.
> Well, to be fair, he wasn't out to write a philosophical tract about the
> treatment of people.
Actually, he wrote a fair amount of philosophical works about the world
of his novels. See the "History of Middle Earth" series.
> ... He was writing an epic, and being intentionally
> old-fashioned about it. It's not as if Grendel is shown in a very
> nuanced light in Beowulf, either; and the attitude of Arthurian knights
> towards the lower classes is rarely shown, if at all, as anything but
> condescending. In other words, Tolkien was not writing from the soul; he
> was writing in genre.
One important point to consider is that Tolkien was quite adamant about
Morgoth's being unable to create life; he must have created the Orcs by
corrupting some existing species - presumably Elves. Tolkien does not
state this as a certainty, but only as the Elves' own best guess as to
the origins of the Orcs; a guess that they passed on to the Dunedain and
the Numenorians. Therefore, whatever hatred that many people showed
towards the orcs in those novels, it was not (necessarily) bigotry
against their species (though you can certainly find bigots in any
sufficiently large group); for they were presumed to be of the same
species as the Elves. It was anger directed at their corruption by
Morgoth, and at the actions they had performed by reason of that corruption.
Ferd Burfle
> emma...@mac.com (Emma Anne) wrote in news:1j7zfij.rgw4y2pwxgy9N%
> emma...@mac.com:
>
>> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the abomination known as American football.
>> It is extremely unfortunate that American football is *called*
>> "football" since it leads to much confusion. But American football is
>> an awesome game, and I can't be having with calling it an abomination.
>
> You can because I did.
>
> In a democratic society my opinion is as valid as yours and my opinion is
> that American Football is an abomination and should not be called football.
>
> Because it's *NOT* football.
>
> I accept that your opinions may be different to mine. You may express them
> differently, or in different ways (I have been known to be a little, shall
> we say 'forthright') but we are each entitled to our own.
Sock Her is for sissies.
-Ferd Burfle
--
Poop, once slung, can never be unslung. Given enough time, it will
decorate the slinger.
Ferd Burfle
Let's call it "Bugry."
Raymond Daley
news:4ae1ed9a...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Well done - this must be a record. People criticising a book they
> haven't read with a great deal of attention I've come across before.
> People writing a dust cover blurb without having read a book at all,
> that happens all the time. But criticising a book when you clearly
> haven't even read the single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory
> sentence by the author printed on the back of the dust cover? That is
> probably a first.
Richard, the pertinant point was I'd read the whole of the INSIDE of the
book, the important bit.
The line "it is not JUST about football" might appear to be very Zen to you
but it sounds like a hastily written excuse to me.
Heres the thought process I see when I read that "Oh no, I just read the
book back and noted I only mentioned 1 real match. Best I cook up some
fancy sounding piece that sounds deep but is in fact my get out clause".
The only thing worse than an excuse is a weak excuse written on the spur of
the moment.
And who takes any notice of the back of a book when your too busy reading
the inside?
Front cover yes, inside blurb maybe. Rear cover inside author notes possibly
to see if there is any new info.
Rear cover, almost never.
Jonathan Ellis
There speaks a very, very bitter person. And one who doesn't actually have a
clue about real rugby tactics, and clearly wasn't even watching what was
really going on in the matches.
Did you know that England, at the time of the Rugby World Cup victory, had
not only beaten every other one of the top eight nations in the world in the
past couple of years, home and away, but scored more *tries* than them too
in those matches? And that they had just set a new record both for points
scored and tries scored in the Six Nations Championship? In which Wilkinson
and Dawson between them made headlines as much for their *running* as their
kicking game, both making exceptional numbers of half-breaks that ended up
setting up one of the centres or wingers, usually Greenwood or Cohen... or
Robinson, or Lewsey, even Tindall scored a fair number of tries. Not to
mention having the world's best scrum at the time. Maybe you'd like to tell
Martin Johnson that he's a nobody in a one-trick team? To his face? Maybe
you'd like to even find someone else who might be willing to try it?
That's just a complete and utter whine that you have there, from someone who
has just a one-dimensional view of rugby. Someone who doesn't understand
either the importance of a good defence (every World Cup has been won, not
by the team which scored the most, but by the team which conceded the
fewest), or the equal importance of punishing teams who commit fouls in
order to avoid conceding tries. The drop-goal is a perfectly good tactic:
when the defence hangs just that bit further back in a complete blanket
defence, it gives the kicker a little bit more time to attempt it. Of course
if they try to charge him down, even legitimately, they're more likely to
leave holes in defence.
Okay. Maybe in the crucial last three matches of that World Cup victory,
England were outscored on tries in the quarter-final and semi-final. This
was only because their opponents (Wales in the quarters, France in the
semis) conceded so many penalties in the effort to avoid conceding tries:
and because they adopted defensive tactics that, in guarding better against
tries, allowed much better chances for a drop-goal to be scored, against
someone they knew to be a superb exponent of the art: but if they'd tried to
commit men to rushing forward to charge the drop-goal attempt down, it would
have left fewer in defence, and the result would have been more English
tries. France in particular were lucky not to have a man (Betsen) sent off
for a series of cynical and brutal fouls, which were quite rightly punished
by penalties, all of which were scored from in a sound 21-7 thrashing: and
while the score in the England/Wales match (25-17) looked close, it was only
a last-minute try by the Welsh long after the match was lost that gave them
any semblance of respectability. The final was one try apiece between
England and Australia, but it was England who came closest to scoring
others, and England who played far more "running" rugby, missing at least
two more tries only through knock-ons with the line at their mercy:
Australia were reduced to kicking for position and relying on some
distinctly dodgy decisions to get into the England half at all, let alone
get the long-range penalties they scored from. As for New Zealand... they
choked. CHOKED. Against Australia.
Rugby's not all about running. You've got to be able to compete everywhere
else too. Scrum, line-out, tackling, rucking, mauling, positional sense,
defensive tactics, general stamina and fitness... we beat the world at ALL
of these. And rugby is as much about them as it is about running with the
ball. Okay, we've not been much cop since then - as much due to basic errors
and incompetence, good players retiring or fading as they age, and the
replacements being not as good: but South Africa's victory in the 2007 world
cup was all about the same virtues. As was England's considerably more
surprising march to the final, while the "apparently attractive to watch"
New Zealand choked... against France this time... AGAIN.
I might have respect for your views on Pratchett books, but if you're going
to dismiss the 2003 world champions (and the 2007 world champions who played
in a similar style, albeit with more cynical foulers) as a one-dimensional
team then you clearly have no clue about rugby.
-- Jonathan.
xande...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Well done - this must be a record. People criticising a book they
>haven't read with a great deal of attention I've come across before.
>People writing a dust cover blurb without having read a book at all,
>that happens all the time. But criticising a book when you clearly
>haven't even read the single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory
>sentence by the author printed on the back of the dust cover? That is
>probably a first.
>
Could you please help me out? The US version does not include the
"single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory sentence by the
author printed on the back of the dust cover"
What did it say?
Chris Zakes
caused Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> to write:
>In message <mmg3e51b6p4ifj619...@4ax.com>
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
(snip)
>>Somehow I think you might be even more offended if we called it American
>>Rugby.
>
>I call it Rugby for wimps.
>
>The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is motorcycle
>racing.
I beg to differ. Consider the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-f8kJH5gQ&feature=related
Note that this is *not* choreographed. The fighters are using sticks
of rattan wrapped in duct tape, and throwing full-force blows. If we
weren't wearing armor, people would be killed.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers at night
May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright.
Chris Zakes
caused James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> to write:
>One important point to consider is that Tolkien was quite adamant about
>Morgoth's being unable to create life; he must have created the Orcs by
>corrupting some existing species - presumably Elves. Tolkien does not
>state this as a certainty, but only as the Elves' own best guess as to
>the origins of the Orcs; a guess that they passed on to the Dunedain and
>the Numenorians.
That's not entirely correct. From the end of chapter 4, "Treebeard" in
"The Two Towers."
"'Will you really break down the doors of Isengard?' asked Merry.
'Ho, hm, well, we could, you know! You do not know, perhaps, how
strong we are. Maybe you have heard of Trolls? They are mighty strong.
But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great
Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.'"
Kris Overstreet
<kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>I call it Rugby for wimps.
>
>The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is motorcycle
>racing.
American football got pads and helmets because people got KILLED
playing the game.
Not injured. Not crippled. Dead. Deceased. Expired. Sitting on the
turf wondering why the referee is TALKING LIKE THIS.
I don't know what the death toll is in rugby to compare, but I should
think that a corpse on the field spoils the festivities, no matter
what jersey it's wearing.
(Yes, even if it's a zebra.)
Redneck
http://www.wlpcomics.com/
----------------------------------------------------
Pre-order PETER IS THE WOLF Book 1 NOW!
http://www.peteristhewolf.com/tpb.html
----------------------------------------------------
James Kuyper
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:38:29 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> to write:
>
>> One important point to consider is that Tolkien was quite adamant about
>> Morgoth's being unable to create life; he must have created the Orcs by
>> corrupting some existing species - presumably Elves. Tolkien does not
>> state this as a certainty, but only as the Elves' own best guess as to
>> the origins of the Orcs; a guess that they passed on to the Dunedain and
>> the Numenorians.
>
> That's not entirely correct. From the end of chapter 4, "Treebeard" in
> "The Two Towers."
>
> "'Will you really break down the doors of Isengard?' asked Merry.
>
> 'Ho, hm, well, we could, you know! You do not know, perhaps, how
> strong we are. Maybe you have heard of Trolls? They are mighty strong.
> But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great
> Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.'"
Yes, but keep in mind that the Ents were taught speech, and much else,
by the Elves; Treebeard is unlikely to have had any more direct
knowledge of the matter than the Elves themselves. Note the use of the
word "certainty" in the following passage from "Of the coming of the
Elves" in the Silmarillion:
"But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known
of a certainty. ... Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that
all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno
was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were
corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor bread the hideous race of
Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves ... This it may be was the vilest
deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Iluvatar"
My main point was the existence of this belief that Orcs were the
corrupted descendants of captured Elves; it was not my intent to attach
any great significance to the small degree of uncertainty the Elves and
Elf friends may have had about that belief.
Rgemini
>
>
>
> There's a review of UA on Tor.com:
> http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=58099
>
> It's a positive review, and it pretty much agrees, in mich more detail,
> with what I said here a few days ago, so I agree with the review. ;-)
>
Just to say a big thank you for making me aware of Tor.com! My inner
geek (which is actually pretty close to the surface anyway) is
enraptured. I'm currently following the chapter by chapter analysis of
TLotR as well as dipping into other reviews. Hours of innocent fun!
Rgemini
Rgemini
Esmeraldus
"Rgemini" <roy...@ayresCAPSonline.me.uk> wrote in message
news:4AE337B1...@ayresCAPSonline.me.uk...
They sometimes offer free stories in.pdf or other formats, too.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Richard Bos
> "Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > Or, with the English team most often, (3) having nobody on your team
> > worth speaking of except aforementioned Mr. Jonny "One-kick Pony"
> > Wilkinson.
>
> There speaks a very, very bitter person.
Bitter? You must be mistaking me for someone who cares a flying shit
which province of a foreign country wins a tournament. Since, amongst
other reasons, the Dutch rugby team is even more pathetic than the Dutch
cricket team[1], I don't even give a discreet flying half-belch, let
alone anything more scatological.
However, I do just _love_ baiting English rugby fanatics with it. Their
guilty conscience makes them bite _every_ _single_ _time_.
*Nasty g*
Richard
[1] Actually, that one is doing surprisingly well for a team from a
country where nobody, but truly nobody[2], plays the game. And will
_still_ lose to Yorkshire and Essex with innings to spare.
[2] To the extent that another similarity between ours and the English',
apart from the obvious wet paper bag one, is that we both had to go
to South Africa to pick up our best players.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:12:08 +0100, Kevin Wells
> <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> >I call it Rugby for wimps.
> >
> >The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is motorcycle
> >racing.
>
> American football got pads and helmets because people got KILLED
> playing the game.
>
> Not injured. Not crippled. Dead. Deceased. Expired. Sitting on the
> turf wondering why the referee is TALKING LIKE THIS.
>
> I don't know what the death toll is in rugby to compare, but I should
> think that a corpse on the field spoils the festivities, no matter
> what jersey it's wearing.
>
> (Yes, even if it's a zebra.)
Well, death or paralysing spinal injry in Rugby Football isn't unknown.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Well, death or paralysing spinal injury in Rugby Football isn't unknown.
Having played both as a teenager, I'd say rugby and American football
are roughly comparable in the level of violence, but the form's a bit
different. Rugby probably has more injuries, but gridiron tends to
have its collisions at higher speed and tends toward heavier players,
so when the injuries happen they're more severe, on average.
Both games can kill you, and are a good bit rougher than anything I've
cared to do since I finished school.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
GaryN
@news.xs4all.nl:
> "Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
>> > Or, with the English team most often, (3) having nobody on your team
>> > worth speaking of except aforementioned Mr. Jonny "One-kick Pony"
>> > Wilkinson.
>>
>> There speaks a very, very bitter person.
>
> Bitter? You must be mistaking me for someone who cares a flying shit
> which province of a foreign country wins a tournament. Since, amongst
> other reasons, the Dutch rugby team is even more pathetic than the Dutch
> cricket team[1], I don't even give a discreet flying half-belch, let
> alone anything more scatological.
I thought the Dutch game was football? Seem to remember them being pretty
succesful back in the 70's/80's (showing my age again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Cruyff
Oh, but that was just one person underpinning the rest of the team wasn't
it? Shurely no reshemlance to what was being discussed?
Of course the Dutch cricket team could probably beat England, everyone else
can. If the Inuit in Northern Canada fielded a team they would probably
beat England...:-)
gary
--
"I really like this jacket
but the sleeves are much too long"
Motorhead - 'Back At The Funny Farm'.
GaryN
news:epv4e5l3hfa25ne0g...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:12:08 +0100, Kevin Wells
> <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>>I call it Rugby for wimps.
>>
>>The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is
>>motorcycle racing.
>
> American football got pads and helmets because people got KILLED
> playing the game.
Have you ever seen a real game of Rugby?
> Not injured. Not crippled. Dead. Deceased. Expired. Sitting on the
> turf wondering why the referee is TALKING LIKE THIS.
Deaths in Rugby matches are not unknown. It always amuses me that
USians seem to regard sporting activities indulged in by British and,
grudgingly, European people as dangerous. Then you expect us to support
you in a pointless, unwinnable war. Which is, incidentally, getting
quite a lot of people killed.
Ho Hum.
> I don't know what the death toll is in rugby to compare, but I should
> think that a corpse on the field spoils the festivities, no matter
> what jersey it's wearing.
Not really. Rugby players go on with the knowledge that there is a damn
good chance of coming off injured. Or being carried off, possibly to a
morgue.
I nearly got killed playing field hockey which is not a contact sport.
If someone knows where I can get a kevlar throat protector I'll be happy
to hear about it.
Europeans don't wear body armour when playing violent games. I'm sure
that Lesley will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that
Canadian Ice-Hockey players wear only the minimum.
Ferd Burfle
They look like Imperial Storm-Troopers in full regalia to me.
Probably not for the game, but for the fighting.
James Kuyper
...
> Deaths in Rugby matches are not unknown. It always amuses me that
> USians seem to regard sporting activities indulged in by British and,
> grudgingly, European people as dangerous. Then you expect us to support
> you in a pointless, unwinnable war. Which is, incidentally, getting
> quite a lot of people killed.
However much I may hate those Americans who besmirched my country's
honor by starting that war, and asked Europeans to join them in it, I'm
willing to begrudge them at least this modicum of sincerity - they
sincerely thought that the war would achieve goals that they considered
to be worth risking those lives to achieve, at least so long as the
lives being risked weren't their own. I don't see how a mere sporting
match could ever provide an excuse that could even come close to that
miserable standard for justifying risking someone's life.
nicho...@gmail.com
> Kris Overstreet <redn...@wlpcomics.com> wrote innews:epv4e5l3hfa25ne0g...@4ax.com:
If they want to play in the NHL they have to wear quite a bit of body
armor. Helmet, visor, and plenty of padding. Even with that stuff
people occasionally break bones blocking shots.
Goalies wear even more for two reasons. First if your job is to be in
the way of a hard, rubber puck going 100 MPH it would be stupid not to
wear a significant amount of padding. If you don't believe do an image
search for Terry Sawchuck. There are rumors that guy was pretty once.
Second the bigger the pad the better the odds it gets in the pucks
way.
Nick
Richard Edlin
"Chris Zakes" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41jod51tvi9tgevj0...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Oct 2009 09:00:49 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>
>>Rgemini <roy...@CAPITALayresonline.LETTERS.me.uk> wrote in
>>news:hbfvjd$2eb3$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>>
>>
>>> IMO Raymond has expressed a perfectly valid opinion and I can see why
>>> he has done so. I've read UA twice now and after the first time I felt
>>> similarly, although not as strongly.
>>
>>I have to admit that I had similar feelings, although not as strong,
>>after first reading. But then I still think "Reaper Man" is crap - each
>>to their own. Re-inventing the football is just narrative
>>doobreywhatsit and IIRC the football used by Carrot in "Jingo" was
>>simply an inflated pig's bladder. I'm refraining from putting a spoiler
>>in here despite the fact that it would prove my point.
>>
>>What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads of
>>times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game called
>>Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American football.
>>
>>I've never worked out why it should be called 'football' when the ball
>>is thrown over a wrestling match rather than kicked anywhere. Does this
>>mean that the term is actually an oxymoron along the lines of 'military
>>intelligence'? Does an American football player actually ever kick the
>>ball?
>>
>>ITWSBT
>>
>>Are there any USians in the audience who might explain?
>
> Although the American football is more frequently carried or thrown,
> it *is* kicked occasionally:
> 1. The kickoff. At the beginning of a game (or after one team has
> scored a goal) play is (re)started by both teams lining up near
> opposite ends of the field and one team kicking the ball toward the
> other team. In this instance, the football is set on a small stand
> before being kicked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqFC6Sjy-So
> 2. The punt. A team that has the ball is given four chances to move it
> forward at least ten yards. If a team doesn't think it has a chance of
> making that ten yards, and if they are too close to the opponent's
> goal line, they may choose to kick the ball down field, in hopes of
> keeping the other team farther away from the goal line when they take
> posession of the ball. In this version, the football is dropped and
> kicked while it's falling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQKHOMHKT00
2b. The safety punt. If you catch the other team in possession in their own
endzone/in-goal you are awarded two points, and play restarts with a punt
downfield (but not as far as for a kickoff following a touchdown/try). The
equivalent of a 22 yard drop-out (union) or goal-line drop-out (league).
> 3. The field goal. This option involves kicking the football between
> the uprights of the goal post at the end of the field to score extra
> points. One player braces the football on the ground while another
> player kicks it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih2wYN8eEl4
> or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlzVDDSfeeA
4. The drop goal.I'm not sure if this is still legal in the NFL, although it
has been used historically. Instead of using a designated kicker, a player
could kick the ball through the goalposts in the same way as in the rugby
football codes. Much less common since they changed the shape of the ball!
Richard.
GaryN
news:hc2qk9$itt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Sportmen and women *choose* to play the game, knowing that there is a
possibility of injury. Soldiers do what they are ordered to do.
Admittedly they do choose to join the military but after, or whilst
doing that, one must remember that there is a chance of being ordered
into a dodgy/dangerous situation.
It's no good complaining that "I only joined as a clerk" when you're
wearing the wrong uniform and someone from the opposition is shooting at
you.
As for Afghanistan - if people had read their history they would have
known how pointless it is to try to suppress the country. The British
Empire, at the height of it's power, tried 3 times;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Afghan_War
The USSR tried, now the US are trying (and finding themselves up against
weapons that they supplied during the Soviet occupation - which is
nicely ironic).
I predict another defeat. Short of nuking the place back to the stone
age there is no way to win in that area.
Instead of winning friends the western world is making enemies!
Larry Moore
The simplest form of hockey is called either /road hockey/ if
played, on the street, [1] during the summer or /shinny on the pond/
in the winter on natural ice. These are played with mininum special
kit - though the goalies might have Sears catalogues as shin guards.
But ...any hockie played in organized leagues, the full protective kit
including helmets, padding and Protectives is required.
A friend of ours is a rent-a-goalie and his kit cost $4000.
.
[1] [Car Coming!!]
--
Location: 43 58 8 N by 80 58 45 W
Growing zone: lowest 48-hour temperature -25C
Built: 1835 Renovations: 1910, 1952, 2006.
GaryN
news:9bqEm.89656$XR1....@newsfe26.ams2:
<snip>
> The line "it is not JUST about football" might appear to be very Zen
> to you but it sounds like a hastily written excuse to me.
> Heres the thought process I see when I read that "Oh no".
It's a quote you ignorant prat. From a real live football player turned
commentator. Although he was probably before your time [1].
Look it up. Oh and learn to puncuate, maybe you could even learn English
grammar while you're at it?
gary
[1]Hint: You will definitely have heard of him. (And NO it's not David
Sodding Beckham or that jerk Rooney)
ppint. at pplay
<snip re-quotes>
>
>It's a quote you ignorant prat. From a real live football player
>turned commentator. Although he was probably before your time [1].
>
>Look it up. Oh and learn to puncuate, maybe you could even learn
>English grammar while you're at it?
>
>gary
>
>[1]Hint: You will definitely have heard of him. (And NO it's not
>David Sodding Beckham or that jerk Rooney)
>
ball player-turned commentator, although he was probably
before your time [1].
Look it up. Oh, and learn to puncuate; maybe you could
even learn English grammar, while you're at it?
gary
[1] Hint: you will definitely have heard of him; and NO,
it's not David "Sodding" Beckham, nor that jerk, Rooney.
- hth; hand - tdwsc!
- love, a ppint. in IMT at pplay through lack of trade
pp.s. - follow-up set to afp, as this ah, discussion,
doesn't _appear_ to be about sir tel's bibbles...
--
"Dragons - the ultimate in pest control"
- sabremeister brian on afp, 7/10/2006 (10/7/2006 for merkins)
James Kuyper
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:hc2qk9$itt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>> ...
>>> Deaths in Rugby matches are not unknown. It always amuses me that
>>> USians seem to regard sporting activities indulged in by British and,
>>> grudgingly, European people as dangerous. Then you expect us to
>>> support you in a pointless, unwinnable war. Which is, incidentally,
>>> getting quite a lot of people killed.
>> However much I may hate those Americans who besmirched my country's
>> honor by starting that war, and asked Europeans to join them in it,
> As for Afghanistan - if people had read their history they would have
> known how pointless it is to try to suppress the country. The British
> Empire, at the height of it's power, tried 3 times;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Afghan_War
>
> The USSR tried, now the US are trying (and finding themselves up against
> weapons that they supplied during the Soviet occupation - which is
> nicely ironic).
>
> I predict another defeat. Short of nuking the place back to the stone
> age there is no way to win in that area.
I assumed that the pointless war you were referring was Iraq. The war in
Afghanistan had a point: hunting down and capturing Al-Qaeda in general,
and Osama Bin-Ladent in particular. It was not necessarily unwinnable;
it became so only as a result of choosing the wrong victory conditions.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we had most of the world's sympathy
on our side (as hard as that is to imagine nowadays), and just cause to
hunt down Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, and any pseudo-governmental
organization such as the Taliban that chose to harbor them. We could
have gone in with the same massive force that Bush decided to reserve
for his "optional" war in Iraq. With that force, we could have smashed
the Taliban even more easily than we did by proxy, hunted down Al-Qaeda,
and had a better chance of catching Bin-Laden. Having met at least two
of those three goals, we should then simply have left, even though the
the destruction of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was not, and could not be,
permanent.
That's the key point - there's no point in invading Afghanistan in the
first place unless you're willing to leave it in chaos, ripe to be taken
over by people you wish were not in power; because if you're afraid of
that result, you'll never be able to leave.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote innews:hc2qk9$itt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
>
>
> > GaryN wrote:
> > ...
> >> Deaths in Rugby matches are not unknown. It always amuses me that
> >> USians seem to regard sporting activities indulged in by British and,
> >> grudgingly, European people as dangerous. Then you expect us to
> >> support you in a pointless, unwinnable war. Which is, incidentally,
> >> getting quite a lot of people killed.
>
> > However much I may hate those Americans who besmirched my country's
> > honor by starting that war, and asked Europeans to join them in it,
> > I'm willing to begrudge them at least this modicum of sincerity - they
> > sincerely thought that the war would achieve goals that they
> > considered to be worth risking those lives to achieve, at least so
> > long as the lives being risked weren't their own. I don't see how a
> > mere sporting match could ever provide an excuse that could even come
> > close to that miserable standard for justifying risking someone's
> > life.
>
> Sportmen and women *choose* to play the game, knowing that there is a
> possibility of injury. Soldiers do what they are ordered to do.
>
> Admittedly they do choose to join the military but after, or whilst
> doing that, one must remember that there is a chance of being ordered
> into a dodgy/dangerous situation.
>
> It's no good complaining that "I only joined as a clerk" when you're
> wearing the wrong uniform and someone from the opposition is shooting at
> you.
It's particularly funny when they were in the National Guard or the
reserves or the British Territorial Army, then they got a dingwally of
a surprise.
If George W. Bush had done his military service under George W. Bush,
would he have been sent to fight in Iraq?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> "Raymond Daley" <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote innews:9bqEm.89656$XR1....@newsfe26.ams2:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The line "it is not JUST about football" might appear to be very Zen
> > to you but it sounds like a hastily written excuse to me.
> > Heres the thought process I see when I read that "Oh no".
>
> It's a quote you ignorant prat. From a real live football player turned
Wasn't the line,
"It's not a matter of life and death
"vgf zber vzcbegnag guna gung"
steveski
[snip]
> It's particularly funny when they were in the National Guard or the
> reserves or the British Territorial Army, then they got a dingwally of
> a surprise.
>
> If George W. Bush had done his military service under George W. Bush,
> would he have been sent to fight in Iraq?
Or Cheney . . .
--
Steveski
Cindy Hamilton
> Note that this is *not* choreographed. The fighters are using sticks
> of rattan wrapped in duct tape, and throwing full-force blows. If we
> weren't wearing armor, people would be killed.
If they weren't wearing armor, they'd be using styrofoam weapons.
Cindy Hamilton
Lee
> had to break down and take out a subbie from the people who make
> my mail/news client. (www.forteinc.com). It costs $2.98/month
> for 3(?) GB and seems a reasonably good deal especially since the
> alternatives are not numerous.
>
There ARE free text-only usenet servers
news.eternal-september.org is what i use, seems to work ok.
(free) sign up required though (no more than any web forum, email addy,
username, password)
they don't fiddle with your headers either
www.eternal-september.org to sign up.
--
Lee
Sofia
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The only sport where crash helmets and padding are needed is
> >motorcycle racing.
>
> I beg to differ. Consider the following video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-f8kJH5gQ&feature=related
>
> Note that this is *not* choreographed. The fighters are using sticks
> of rattan wrapped in duct tape, and throwing full-force blows. If we
> weren't wearing armor, people would be killed.
Hi Chris,
Is this really a sport?? I've never heard of it ever!
It just looked as if they were re-enacting this "Pennsic Castle" War
in the video... for a film or something perhaps.
If it were a real team sport, it would all be organised with a referee
to keep the peace so people couldn't be killed!
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Sofia
> I have to admit that I had similar feelings, although not as strong,
> after first reading. But then I still think "Reaper Man" is crap -
> each to their own.
Hmm, I know what you mean: I've read and reread "The Fifth Elephant",
but it seemed to drag on a bit for me both times, though I loved
"Reaper Man" and have a soft spot for the Death character!
I'm also only on p140 of UA, but unlike Raymond, I'm enjoying it
immensely - I'm particularly fond of Mr Nutt the goblin. He's
very strangely weird and unlike anybody else in the DW series.
I'm still trying to make out how he came back from the dead?
Re-inventing the football is just narrative
> doobreywhatsit and IIRC the football used by Carrot in "Jingo" was
> simply an inflated pig's bladder. I'm refraining from putting a
> spoiler in here despite the fact that it would prove my point.
Funny you said that - I'm going to have to go back and reread "Jingo"
too. All I really remember about it was that Klatch was stealing fish
and giant squid from Ank-Morpork, and have forgotten all about the
inflated pig's bladder - arrrgghh, you've spoilt it for me already! :-)
> What's wrong with re-inventing football anyway? It's been done loads
> of times throughout the centuries, that's how we got a proper game
> called Rugby and, unfortunately, the abomination known as American
> football.
Here, here!! They look like boxed up ballet dancers - UGH!!
All the best
SteveD
wrote:
"Eat your vegetables or you'll be sent to fight in Cheney!"
...ew.
-SteveD
Chris Zakes
Well, actually, it's the Society for Creative Anachronism, the largest
historical re-creation group in the world http://sca.org/. We
recreate many aspects of the European Middle Ages and Renaissance
(generally avoiding things like the Black Plague and religious wars)
at weekend (or occasionally longer) events. The re-creation very
definitely includes mock combat in medieval-style armor. Pennsic War
is our largest event. It runs for two or three weeks every August, has
around 10,000 people attending and the main field battles have
something like 2000 - 3000 fighters.
SCA fighting isn't really a "sport" in the way football is a
sport--it's much less organized. We have marshals instead of referees,
and fighters are on their honor to call any blow that hits them as if
it had been from a real weapon; thus a solid hit to the head or body
is a "kill", one to an arm or leg disables that arm or leg.
But no, it's not some re-enactment for a film. Pennsic has been
happening for over thirty years. The castle is a permanent structure
at the campsite in Pennsylvania where the war is held every year. (If
you go to Google maps, enter "Pennsic War" and zoom in three or four
clicks, you can see the castle by the "T318" marker on Currie Road.)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers at night
May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright.
Chris Zakes
Styrofoam breaks too easily. It's really only useful for breakaway
lances in jousting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqVY_dPGRUc
Foam rubber wrapped around a golf tube or a piece of PVC pipe works
*much* better if you want weapons but no armor.
Bob Larter
> In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we had most of the world's sympathy
> on our side (as hard as that is to imagine nowadays),
Yes, because you were the victim of a major terrorist attack that killed
thousands.
> and just cause to
> hunt down Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, and any pseudo-governmental
> organization such as the Taliban that chose to harbor them.
Indeed. It's a shame that the USA didn't do that - choosing instead to
make an unprovoked attack on Iraq.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anery
> Anery <vsp...@atlas.cz> wrote:
>
> > I'm especially curious about Mister Nutt. I'm just re-reading "The
> > Lord of the Rings" (for the first time in English - it's quite a big
> > difference!) and the attitude of Tolkien towards the orcs as the whole
> > species is one of the things I find rather bothersome. As well as the
> > whole classism thing.
>
> Well, to be fair, he wasn't out to write a philosophical tract about the
> treatment of people. He was writing an epic, and being intentionally
> old-fashioned about it.
One of the unintended consequences of that is a Czech translation
which is hardly palatable (to me) for its clumsy, would-be archaic
language. Strangely enough, a fair amount of people don't seem to
mind.
> It's not as if Grendel is shown in a very
> nuanced light in Beowulf, either; and the attitude of Arthurian knights
> towards the lower classes is rarely shown, if at all, as anything but
> condescending. In other words, Tolkien was not writing from the soul; he
> was writing in genre.
>
Yes, and I wasn't expecting otherwise. But it creates a certain low-
level annoyance in me during reading and at a certain point, the
egalitarian in me realized that it takes a conscious effort to ignore
it in order to be able to enjoy the book.
(Entirely beside the point: any mention of Grendel inevitably makes me
think of the Hungarian writer Lajos Grendel in the first place. There
is such thing as imprinting.
Not to say that the mention of Beowulf leads me to picture the salt
and pepper schnauzer which used to belong to my mum's colleague. But
in that case, the source of his name is indisputable, although I
didn't know it at that time - we didn't learn about the Beowulf Saga
at school.)
Anery
Anery
> Richard Bos wrote:
> > Anery <vsp...@atlas.cz> wrote:
>
> >> I'm especially curious about Mister Nutt. I'm just re-reading "The
> >> Lord of the Rings" (for the first time in English - it's quite a big
> >> difference!) and the attitude of Tolkien towards the orcs as the whole
>
> I assume you're referring to the attitude, implicit throughout his work,
> that the orcs were irredeemably evil.
>
Yes.
>
<snip>
> One important point to consider is that Tolkien was quite adamant about
> Morgoth's being unable to create life; he must have created the Orcs by
> corrupting some existing species - presumably Elves. Tolkien does not
> state this as a certainty, but only as the Elves' own best guess as to
> the origins of the Orcs; a guess that they passed on to the Dunedain and
> the Numenorians. Therefore, whatever hatred that many people showed
> towards the orcs in those novels, it was not (necessarily) bigotry
> against their species (though you can certainly find bigots in any
> sufficiently large group); for they were presumed to be of the same
> species as the Elves. It was anger directed at their corruption by
> Morgoth, and at the actions they had performed by reason of that corruption.
I didn't know that, not having read Silmarillion. But
1. it was Tolkien in the first place, and not Mogroth, who introduced
a whole race which was held intrinsically evil, and which was
described as "degraded and repulsive versions of the least lovely
Mongol-types",
2. in TLOTR, people (of whatever species) didn't seem to think much
behind orcs = evil & danger most of the time.
So I've found it refreshing to learn that the latest DW book takes
side of a member of that much maligned race.
Anery
GaryN
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:6e6168b0-f4e1-48f7...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 26, 2:38�pm, GaryN <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>> "Raymond Daley" <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>> innews:9bqEm.89656$XR1
> .14960@newsfe26.ams2:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The line "it is not JUST about football" might appear to be very
>> > Zen to you but it sounds like a hastily written excuse to me.
>> > Heres the thought process I see when I read that "Oh no".
>>
>> It's a quote you ignorant prat. �From a real live football player
>> turne
> d
>> commentator. �Although he was probably before your time.
>
> Wasn't the line,
>
> "It's not a matter of life and death
>
> "vgf zber vzcbegnag guna gung"
>
Ummm, actually I was going to apologise for my somewhat unpleasant
attitude and language in that post. Being arrested and held for 6 hours
on charges of "Loitering With Intent" and "Drunk and Disorderly" which
were then dropped can really leave one pissed off and looking for a
target to vent said irritation on.
What I'd actually done was sit on a bench in a public area halfway
between the SO's and my place - I stop there every time I make that walk
because the bad leg needs a rest. Apparently somebody in the houses
opposite thought I'd been checking them out and called the cops.
Admittedly the conversation with an eager young copper
"It says Stella Artois on the can" (there is a 'no alcohol in a public
place inside the ringroad' local law here)
"No shit Sherlock, so you can read big writing, how are Janet and John
doing?"
Could have been better phrased I suppose.
I'd actually finished the Stella the previous night and filled the can
with lemonade because it was the only portable container I could find.
By the time they'd finished emptying my tobacco tin looking for cannabis
(which I don't use), checked my emergency painkillers (paracetemol and
coedine sulphate, all prescribed), taken a breath test which was
negative and discovered that the liquid in the Stella can was, in fact,
lemonade it was 6 hours later and then I had to walk home.
So I apologise for being a little rude but hope that you will understand
the reasons.
gary
GaryN
4ax.com:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:19:43 GMT, ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Well done - this must be a record. People criticising a book they
>>haven't read with a great deal of attention I've come across before.
>>People writing a dust cover blurb without having read a book at all,
>>that happens all the time. But criticising a book when you clearly
>>haven't even read the single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory
>>sentence by the author printed on the back of the dust cover? That is
>>probably a first.
>>
>
>
> Could you please help me out? The US version does not include the
>
> "single, double-sized, two-coloured explanatory sentence by the
> author printed on the back of the dust cover"
>
> What did it say?
This is not where the quote originally came from but it's close enough,
although talking about a different sort of football.
http://videos.nj.com/star-
ledger/2009/10/rutgers_vs_pittsburgh_is_not_j.html
hth
Sabremeister Brian
Xns9CB181F7D66BBg...@212.23.3.119,
Sounds like you have a case against them for wrongful arrest
and/or harrassment, especially with all the other stuff you seem
to get from them.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I'm not a spy, I'm a shepherd!"
"Ah - shepherd's pie!"
- A fragment of the late great Spike Milligna's brain