pirana

I know we have some "alternative" thinkers here, and thought others might enjoy this post from a forum at the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today (Baut) website. At the end is a fellow poster's response on what is missing. Some member mentioned something about "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory", so I decided to present it for ya; WARNING:WOO FOLLOWING, do not take anything of this seriously or your brain will asplode Ladies and Gentleman, I present the Great Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory (GGUCT) to you! It encompasses every woo conspiracy theory that you can imagine in just one thing, The Great Holy WOO Its tenets are the following; 1.Every single conspiracy theory that you can/cannot think of is right and everyone who don't belive it is a secret goverment agent who want to hide Truth TM from you. 2.Goverment is evil. 3.Companies are evil. 4.Everyone who objects to your silly claims is a fascist and a goverment foot licker. 5.Every single bad thing in the human history has happened because of a SECRET CONSPIRACY. 6.WTC was destroyed by secret goverment Y-ray laser (those rays with infinite wavelenghts recovered from Rosvelt remains of an alien spaceship from Planet X) and everyone who saw otherwise was given a secret mind altering radiation isotope of LSD. 7. Kennedy was in fact assasinated not by gunshot from a man named Oswald, but by a shapeshifting lizard alien what come from the hollow Earth working for Jewish Communist Illuminatis who wanted to kill Kennedy because he was going to disclose Truth TM that the Planet X will go through the Solar system in 2012 and that it orbits around a Dark Star that will go around here at FTL speed and end us all. 8.The Earth is hollow and growing, everyone who says otherwise is a close minded evil goverment fascist and it is an undisputable scientific fact with no evidence. 9.Every person who works in a goverment institution is in fact an evil shapeshifting lizard man from Iota Draconis. 10.Moon has pyramids, plants and alien spaceships on it andMoon landing was a hoax. 11."The Face" is REAL and THE MGS IMAGE WAS FABRACATEEEEED!!!!!!! 12.Mars is inhabited by 2 meters tall humanlike aliens with blonde hair and shining blue eyes. 13.Elvis was an alien from Planet X who came back home, his body was just a decoy. 14.Princess Diana's death was caused by spacetime changing electroferrotelepatic aliens from the Sun what is is fact a shining icy cold iron sphere that produces light and heat due to a plutonic substance called W00. 15.UFOs as alien ships, ghosts, zombies are real and Earth is only 6000 years old in fact, IT IS SCIENTFICALLY PROOVEN! 16.The Tunguska event was caused by an angry angel descending from the sky with a firey sword to punish the heathen unbeliving Russian Siberian trees. 17.Everuone who don't belive all of this is EVILEVILEVILEVILGOVERMENTGOVERMENTGOVERMENT....... Nice try, but needs work. You need some Mayans, Chemtrails, Star Bursts (the candy), Natalie Wood, Nixon, the Russians, Easter Island stone heads, vaccines, Bill Gates, the Military-Industrial Complex, several different wars, Free Masons, Muslims, Catholics, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Rockerfellers, the Queen, the UN, Global Warming, the drug companies, the oil companies, Lindburgh, the CIA, the NSA, NASA, NASCAR, MLB, Area 51, Area 52, Stanley Kubrick, and of course, the members of BAUT. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

"Love is the drug that I'm thinking of" - Roxy Music " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

30%, apparently...... Clearly the CAS disagreed: Bev's reply did not deserve the sarcasm. Of course the people with an agenda disagree, as well as the dualing experts and lawyers they hired. The sarcasm was deserved. The discussion is around discerning a physical advantage from use of the device; and they threw in the emotional plea. Kind of like "But think of the children." " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Thanks for pointing that out. As I said; the strong hitters & diggers were playing full-time, the weaker players half-time. I thought it was a very reasonable approach for a 6th grade team (heck, there are schools around us that have tryouts at that level - - we play everybody), and it did get us into the sweet 16. As far as how they get good; for the best players it is natural athleticism and hard work. Either one without the other can get you to good; but to be a rock star requires both. If a kid is unable or unwilling to run killers, dive on the floor, bang into people, etc - - they should take up golf or swimming or play intramural. BTW, for younger kids (prior to 6th grade/12 years) the approach is purely instructional. Everybody gets to try everything & everybody gets equal playing time. And we preach from day one that they need to come to every practice they can, listen to the coaches, work hard, and practice on their own to prepare for the days in the future when more playing time does go to those that work for it. That really was the point of the OP: Do people feel that the age we are making that transition (12 years) is the right age? (Keeping in mind this is travelling team and is intended to be competitive). BTW, in all the teams I've coached, the weakest players are almost always the ones that miss the most practices and rarely practice on their own. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Good to know that even in a thread about kids athletics there is someone you can count on to take it down to name-calling. Very nice. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I definitely felt for the 2 highly competitive-minded players. The only reason I went to the parents was because I had 4 players asking why everyone wasn't playing equally. So I asked them. Two said do what it takes to win the tourney, 4 said share time equally, and 1 wouldn't commit. I did give up control of the team; and it is something I won't do again. The plan for next season's basketball team will be to meet with the director, come to agreement on direction, let everybody know the score up front, and stick to it. It will be 7th grade, and related to what was mentioned, several of the players are attending camps this summer, shooting daily, and in general doing what it takes to improve skills. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

OK then. I'm going to meet with the varsity basketball coach and get the intended direction of the program, and how that might impact playing time. Everybody does get to play. It's a small school, so there are no tryouts. The issue is really just about playing time. Seems pretty simple, I just wanted and appreciate additional perspectives. The thing is if we scare off all but the best skille paland everybody " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's the problem with democracy. It's very easy for smooth-talking leaders to portray an attractive image, cover their mistakes with schmooze, and lead us well down the bad path before the huddled masses realize they've been fucked over yet again. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

They're pretty cool most of the time. The exceptions are when they start sniping at each other. Much meaner than boys. The crying took some getting used to. They're higher level of sensitivities results in a lot of tears. They cry when they are happy, sad, angry, winning, losing, physically hurt, etc. I've actually had a couple times when they didn't know why they were crying. I made a little joke once because we were in a double OT game with the score tied and about 30 seconds left. I said that either way we were half a minute away from everybody being in tears because win or lose, you just know it's coming. Most thought it was funny, a couple thought I was being insensitive. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So maybe it is a matter of fit. Like so many things, it is all about the relationships. Do the program, coaches, players, and parents have a mutual goal? I'm concerned about this because next year I've got 7th Grade Girls Basketball. It involves a few of the same girls. I want to address this up front before we get started without scaring people away. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Whole-heartedly agree. For my baseball team of 10-year olds, everybody plays, everybody gets a chance to try whatever they like. It is all about being ready to learn, putting forth effort, and enjoying playing ball with your friends. My story is similar to yours. I sucked at baseball until about my middle teens. Played Little League B team only because not many kids came out (small town). Couldn't even come close to making the HS squad. But by about age 19 I was rock-star good. I don't even know how exactly it happened. Just kept playing I guess until my senses and body matured. I am terrible at fund-raising though. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Very good - -What is the stated purpose up front? I hadn't thought of it other than to go to the parents since I consider it their team. I did chat a couple days later with the head honcho of volleyball for our district and he hedged a bit, but thought the kids who are working hardest, and therefore improving their skills the most, deserve more playing time, especially if it means placing better. And maybe my initial explanation needs more detail. I coach in programs where the intent is to instruct and train athletes to successfully compete at the varsity level. Success at that level in our district means winning (but doing so within the rules and letter of the law). We are not an intramural/recreational program; but are expected to deliver highly skilled competitive athletes to the varsity level. To do that we start out with instruction as the only goal, and eventually move to winning the games as the primary goal. We never stop instructing, but at what age do we reward skills with more playing time? (And therefore a better chance of winning?) " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's a very common scenario. I've coached many kids teams; from 6 year old T-Ball to HS age baseball. At either end of that the answer is usually very obvious. For the 6 year olds the emphasis is on instruction; with no regards at all for who wins the game. At the varsity level, there is little doubt that the object is to win the game and players have roles of rock-star-starter to benchwarmer and everything in between. Accepting their role is part of remaining on the team. My quandry is: Where does winning the game take priority over fairness in playing time? p.s. - If that is disturbing, you must be an absolute wreck with all that is going on in the world today. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Allow me to clarify. There is a group that wanted to win the championship tourney. The other group wanted to share playing time, regardless of the impact on chances of winning the tourney. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

At what age, or what number of years of experience, do you start playing to win? Let's assume kids on average begin playing a typical competitive team sport such as baseball or basketball at age 10. By this I mean they are playing in a league of organized teams for the first time in which there are officials, score is kept, and usually a season or tournament champion is crowned. I was a bit surprised when the volleyball team I coach (6th grade - mostly 12 year-olds) got into a debate on whether we share playing time equally even if it meant reducing our chances of winning or play to win if that meant giving better hitters more playing time. It was in the middle of the season-ending tourney and we had won 3 matches and gotten to the round of 16 (out of 55 teams) by playing the 5 good hitters full-time and platooning the 2 weak hitters in the 6th position. Even so, the players were in dissent and our team chemistry was about to come apart in a flurry of the nasty little comments 6th grade girls can make. So I took the issue to the parents. By a 2/3 majority, they called for equal playing time no matter the consequences; which were that we ended up getting bounced out of the elite 8, finishing 11th, and watching a team we had beaten 2 weeks prior take the title. The secondary consequences are that the team chemistry improved dramatically. However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win. I am having a difficult time sorting out the good from the bad on this one; and came to the conclusion that it all depends on what age a person feels that winning is the primary goal of competitive sports. So that is the question I am posing, in order to see what this opinionated group has to say. At what age do you start playing to win? Give reasons for your opinion. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

At what age, or what number of years of experience, do you start playing to win? Let's assume kids on average begin playing a typical competitive team sport such as baseball or basketball at age 10. By this I mean they are playing in a league of organized teams for the first time in which there are officials, score is kept, and usually a season or tournament champion is crowned. I was a bit surprised when the volleyball team I coach (6th grade - mostly 12 year-olds) got into a debate on whether we share playing time equally even if it meant reducing our chances of winning or play to win if that meant giving better hitters more playing time. It was in the middle of the season-ending tourney and we had won 3 matches and gotten to the round of 16 (out of 55 teams) by playing the 5 good hitters full-time and platooning the 2 weak hitters in the 6th position. Even so, the players were in dissent and our team chemistry was about to come apart in a flurry of the nasty little comments 6th grade girls can make. So I took the issue to the parents. By a 2/3 majority, they called for equal playing time no matter the consequences; which were that we ended up getting bounced out of the elite 8, finishing 11th, and watching a team we had beaten 2 weeks prior take the title. The secondary consequences are that the team chemistry improved dramatically. However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win. I am having a difficult time sorting out the good from the bad on this one; and came to the conclusion that it all depends on what age a person feels that winning is the primary goal of competitive sports. So that is the question I am posing, in order to see what this radically opinionated group has to say. At what age do you start playing to win? Give reasons for your opinion. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My sentiments exactly. People belly-ache like all get out; then return most of the incumbents to office. If the devil you know is less scary than the devil you don't know - - then shut up and eat your porridge. I've long advocated a vote-them-all-out approach. Vote every last one of the assholes out of office. If the new group does not fundamentally change the way they address our nations issues; and does not make something more than tiny marginal improvements to SOMETHING - - ANYTHING!!! . . . .vote all the fuckers out again. At some point the politicians might get the idea. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's it, just one reply. Must be lots of Blue Skies out there today. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My 3 R's wasn't meant to specifically call out just those 3 subjects. My intention was academics in general - to include all of the natural sciences, social sciences, even vocational classes. The first order of public schools should be academics. I know of at least one elementary school principal who did not agree. Based on the state of our schools, my guess is there are a lot of them out there. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How many feel the 63 yard field goal record should have an asterisk, or be removed from the books, because the guy kicked with a prosthetic instead of a foot? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Sounds like the beginnings of Tel-Evangalism. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Rather hyperbolic OP. Dismal Failure? I think saying the system has it's fair share of problems would be more accurate. Like any large bureacracy trying to be so many things for so many people, they are challenged to stay on track. They shoot for a common denominator, which they must do as a matter of cost; but I'll admit it is lower than I think it should be. As mentioned, if it were not compulsory far too many kids would get totally left behind. I'd be more in favor of a middle ground where there were more realistic and affordable choices; but it definitely needs to stay mandatory. Agree very heartily with the comments about problems being grounded in a child's home life. By the time they get to school age, the die is cast. You need not look any further than the parents to discover the roots of most children's problems. In fact, I'd say the schools have gotten into their current financial and performance predicaments by trying to correct the problems usually grounded in the home - - a role that is too expansive and expensive for the resources they have. If they stuck to the 3 R's, they get way more money than they need. But trying to be the super-provider of comprehensive social needs; which appears to be the track they have taken; then there isn't enough money in the world - - because you can not buy your way into playing the role of parents. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It does. We all had a huge conversation about this very subject in a previous thread. You have to respect the dividing line between the two, it is impenetrable. It is literally two completely different perceptions of the same world. One sees what the other does not and visa versa. I would hardly say that those who believe however, dont use deductive logic, its just logic and reason that is out of the perception of those who do not believe. Since I am a believer, I believe there was wisdom in the "beginning". Others do not. So what do you do when a fundamentalist interpretation is completely out of sync with observable facts, investigation and experimentation, etc? In my opinion that is one of the methods (science) putting proof on the table, and the other (faith) saying they don't believe it because it clashes with the way they wish things were based on ancient systems of belief. To me it is the equivalent of a modern man studying chemistry and insisting that there are only four elements, because a several hundred year's old book says so. The 4 elements theory is very interesting (and valuable) as a means of understanding what has lead up to current methods and thinking; but to insist it is accurate is ludicrous. If you are not of that school of interpretation, then my statements are directed to those that are of the strict fundamentalist type. I used to accept the apologetics that were of the to-each-his-own ilk. But when an educator starts telling school age kids that the Grand Canyon truly is only a couple thousand years old, and other such tripe, then it is beyond personal choice and is damaging to society. I really can not fathom wanting something to be so true so badly that a person abandons critical thought, logic, and hundreds of years of building ever more accurate knowledge as if it were just the flotsam of society. When science, which has only the accumulation of knowledge as an agenda, penetrates the kind of lie I mentioned, then the it's-just-2-different-ways-of-looking line isn't good enough. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So your all powerful, all knowing, all etc... God created your Bible but only those people with "spiritual direction and understanding" can read it correctly ... What kind and loving god would write something that the vast majority of the people cannot read to understand? He must also be responsible for the instructions behind California's 540 tax form. He must be related to this one philosophy professor I had for Symbolic Logic. Or maybe it was me. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

This must have been very embarassing for you, showing your ignorance in public like that... way back then, it was trips of the Sun around the earth - not earth around the sun even before then, the sun just traversed across the firmament in a drawn carriage, then at night it worked its way through the caverns beneath the surface of the flat planet (actually, I like to think it burned a straight shot through the lower world since it seemed to take about the same amount of time to travel under as it did 'over') the whole rotation thing didn't really switch until somewhere between Copernicus' and Galileo's days. read your bible and the church histories for goodness sakes That's it. This thread has degenerated into such disrespectable irrelevant silliness that I am going to the bonfire. Even chuteless has left. I'll be back when you can stay on topic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley