From: Tim C. on
On 6 Aug 2006 13:46:21 -0700, "A Human Being"
<justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Tim C. wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:27:34 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There are many forms of competition that seem civilized enough to me.
>> >Sport is unique in that it is competition that serves no useful
>> >purpose ... and it isn't always civilized.
>>
>> It can be seen as a stylised version of warfare.
>
>Which indicates that societies where they are given undue importance
>consists of people who are more aggressive by nature.

Or those that have learnt to channel their normal levels of aggression
into sport rather then fighting. Or are generally less aggressive and
can't bring themselves to fight, so need sport as an Ersatz. It can be
interpreted in almost any way you care to think.

>> In that sense it
>> serves a very useful purpose.

By helping in a small way to reduce the need for full warfare?

>In what way does it help the population?

Doh!
--
Tim C.
From: Tim C. on
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:04:01 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowIMPLEMENTPLAN9!@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>Tim C. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:27:34 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There are many forms of competition that seem civilized enough to me.
>> >Sport is unique in that it is competition that serves no useful
>> >purpose ... and it isn't always civilized.
>>
>> It can be seen as a stylised version of warfare. In that sense it
>> serves a very useful purpose.
>
>
>Anyway you look at it sports is a TOTAL waste of time...people that are
>heavily involved in sports are generally fairly stupid. When has an athlete
>ever been known to be a great thinker?

If you see it like that, it keeps the thickos off the streets.
Policemen and builders are also a total waste of time because they
don't spend inordinate amounts of time wondering whether there is (or
isn't) a God?

It can help you develop a sense of teamwork and individual importance
in various sports and their relationship to each other. Something that
very many people seem to lack nowadays. Although I think that in
professional sport it is something that seems to have gone in to the
bin along with sportsmanship in favour of fame and money.

Roger Bannister was a doctor, if that counts.
Milon, a pupil of Pythagoras was an early Olympic hero.
John Neumayr Dr.Phil. and basketball professional.

--
Tim C.
From: Tim C. on
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:59:25 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
<deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>The purpose it serves is slighty abstract, so I don't expect you to
>understand, but I will give you a chance.

Now now DFM, don't be sarky. :-)
Maybe Mixi's alter ego can give him a few hints.
I'm not holding my breath.
--
Tim C.
From: Gregory Morrow on

Martin wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:40:29 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger(a)aon.at>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:04:01 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
> ><gregorymorrowIMPLEMENTPLAN9!@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Tim C. wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:27:34 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >There are many forms of competition that seem civilized enough to me.
> >>> >Sport is unique in that it is competition that serves no useful
> >>> >purpose ... and it isn't always civilized.
> >>>
> >>> It can be seen as a stylised version of warfare. In that sense it
> >>> serves a very useful purpose.
> >>
> >>
> >>Anyway you look at it sports is a TOTAL waste of time...people that are
> >>heavily involved in sports are generally fairly stupid. When has an
athlete
> >>ever been known to be a great thinker?
> >
> >If you see it like that, it keeps the thickos off the streets.
> >Policemen and builders are also a total waste of time because they
> >don't spend inordinate amounts of time wondering whether there is (or
> >isn't) a God?
> >
> >It can help you develop a sense of teamwork and individual importance
> >in various sports and their relationship to each other. Something that
> >very many people seem to lack nowadays. Although I think that in
> >professional sport it is something that seems to have gone in to the
> >bin along with sportsmanship in favour of fame and money.
> >
> >Roger Bannister was a doctor, if that counts.
> >Milon, a pupil of Pythagoras was an early Olympic hero.
> >John Neumayr Dr.Phil. and basketball professional.
>
> Looks like pure coincidence to me. :-)


That's 'cos they all didn't live at the same time ;-)

--
Best
Greg




From: Hatunen on
On 6 Aug 2006 01:58:43 -0700, "A Human Being"
<justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2006 11:48:10 -0700, "A Human Being"
>> <justahumanbeing1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Dave Frightens Me wrote:
>> >> On 2 Aug 2006 08:28:19 -0700, "A Human Being"
>>
>> >So are midgets and people over 7 ft tall. Why aren't they paid just as
>> >much as professional models or basketball or football players?
>>
>> Professional athletes are paid what the owners think is
>> reasonable for the number of tickets they will be responible for
>> selling.
>
>Yes.
>
>> If you want to blmae someone for their high salaries,
>> blame the fans, who are willing to pay the inflated seat prices
>> to see them perform. Ditto for some like Madonna.
>
>Why are those fans willing to pay such inflated prices ?
>
>> How much are you personally willing to pay for tickets to see a
>> midget or a seven-footer (unless, of course, the seven-footer is
>> ace at ball-handling and scoring from the three-point line).
>
>Why aren't they as popular as Madonna ?

>> How much are you willing to pay a second grade teacher?
>
>Much more than what they get now, enough to make it all worthwhile and
>keep them interested in teaching . A society's future depends on the
>people who take care of its basic needs - teachers, health
>professionals, builders and the like , even the refuge collectors. I
>rate them much higher than Madonna or the basketball players.

I didn't ask what society was willing to pay; I asked what YOU
were willing to pay.

>>You will
>> do they paying, after all, through your taxes. Are you willing to
>> pay that teacher $100,000 a year, quadrupling your taxes?
>
>If the govt spent the money wisely and a lot of wasteful practices were
>curbed, the teachers could get much better salaries without an increase
>in taxation. But the problem in a nanny state is that the population is
>not free to have their say and affect the govt's decisions. They lost
>that freedom quite a while ago.

You're evading the question: are you willing to quadruple your
taxes so that public school teachers can earn, say, $100,000 per
year?

And a lot of that unwisely spent money is due to the bloated
infrastructure that the federal government demands. I suggest you
run for your local school board.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *