Peterkin

- To entertain the children; prevent whining, tantrums, wheedling, boredom and sibling strife in order to keep the parents functioning until they reach self-sufficiency. - To keep a child occupied, giving the parents some alone-time to recombine their DNA. - To cull the prepubescent herd, as per article linked by The Vat ^^. - To test relative intelligence, physical stamina and attention-span for vocational sorting (you want to send the tough, aggressive and stupid off to boot-camp asap and train the more valuable 'keepers' for long term occupations. - To build the social skills necessary for the acquisition and retention of property.

Yeah, but dead people are so much easier to get along with than the so-and-so with the weak bladder three seats over, and the painted idjit jumping up and spilling his beer at every near miss by the wrong team!

Yes, there is. Play is play; work is work. If you play for pay, it turns into work. That's a legitimate perspective. but it doesn't get any closer to your opening claim about uniting "us". Mandela's opinion notwithstanding. Actually, the least enjoyable FIFA world cup was 2010: vuvuzelas are worse than bagpipes!

That is NOT my position. My position is that sport is wonderful (I've said so) that sport is a good way to deflect aggression into harmless competition (I said so in my first response) that sport is a healthy outlet for frustration, a great way to build strength, stamina and co-ordination. Sport, particularly team sport, is good training for children to learn rules, co-operation, self-control and how to cope with disappointment. It's a primitive but reliable assessment of adolescent males for their status in a masculine hierarchy (if you must have those) and an even better means of bolstering the confidence of adolescent females. It's also fun, both to participate in and to watch. A home team inspires loyalty and pride of community. I may have left some stuff out, but the main theme here is that sport is wonderful (I've said that already). What's bad is commercializing it, turning it into a spectacle, exploiting athletes and driving them to self-destructive behaviours in pursuit of winning, isolating them, wrecking their childhood and social life, idolizing them and commodifying them at the same time. What's wrong is turning a joyful leisure activity that everyone should enjoy into a profession and a business. That's wrong.

Why the big letters? Sure, me too. But how is this relevant to international sporting competition bringing people together? Has any government ever taken the warhead off a single missile because they were so moved by an olympic victory?

I have no statistics on this, but I suspect Nana Mouskouri has brought together more disparate people (like you and me) than Beauden Barrett.

What about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"? Oddly enough, I also know more of Matilda than Fitzgerald. Thanks for the welcome. It seems like a nice port to get washed up in. More technologically advanced than I'm used to. As to sport, it has much to contribute to the health, and perhaps even the cohesion of a society. IMO, music does it better, for being more accessible on a visceral level. For example, my SO, who emigrated from Europe in adulthood, doesn't 'get' hockey or baseball. Uh....? But, on a visceral level, I can connect with it!

On closer inspection (as you can see, it's been preying on my mind) that's not one book, but excerpts from several. In each case, the word is used correctly, akin to "differential diagnosis", but the language is so dense with specialized words and information, it's difficult to follow. Is it really that hard write simply and clearly about plant pathogens and old muscles?

Yes, it does. As an editor, I would still like to talk to the author about repetition and clarity. After all, you're addressing students who can be easily confused (and once confused, much less easily straightened out again!), not colleagues who are familiar with the jargon.

Sounds as if the author were just inordinately fond of the word - as I am of "inordinately". Plus, you're so last century! Nobody cares about the meanings of words anymore.

I didn't know that! Maybe they don't think it's as over as Kenney thinks it is. Speaking of which, US visitors and asylum-seekers, don't count on our infamous socialized health care if you're crossing into Alberta.

Developed, then deployed. Like those Florida alligators in Trump's moat, except we don't need the electrified fence and gun turrets: swim across at your peril. (Or just drive to a border crossing and be polite for five minutes.) You sure you're Canayjun?

I expect you've heard about Simone Biles. Interesting article. I hope she'll be all right!

You obviously don't know about the Giant Burbot Project. (but i've already said too much....)

Bonus point: my masks are funny. I wore baby shark one (it's army green) and my MASH tee-shirt to the vaccination place, which gave the nurses and volunteers a giggle. They need one, every so often, just as they need to see co-operation.

But requiring everyone in a venue to wear a mask protects everyone, including me. By wearing it in public, I'm not just protecting myself and possibly others, I'm also encouraging the practice of safety in general. People are more likely to comply if they see others doing it.

I'm not holding anyone back. I'm not pushing anyone forward. I'm not involved with them at all. But I do see the effects of commercial sport on society and I do sometimes wonder about the state of a society that puts so much store by spectacles. I don't hold him; I don't push him; I work toward a society that gives every child an opportunity to reach his or her potential, preferably without sacrifice, and I put nobody - let me emphasize: nobody, for any reason, ever - on a pedestal. That's a perfectly legitimate opinion I feel entitled to refrain from sharing.

The masks I use have three layers: an outside one of brushed cotton or silk to repel water, a soft middle layer to conform to my nose, cheekbones and chin, and an inside layer that's either closely woven fabric or a standard paper surgical mask. (Unfortunately, the latter kind don't wash well, so I have to keep replacing the liner.) What I see very often that gives me the willies is a stiff mask that slips down off the wearer's nose every three minutes, and he shoves it back up after a few good whuffs into whatever air happens to be around.

And that is as it should be. To the extent that is as it is, sport is a unifying influence in human society.

Not to my satisfaction. Certainly, some people do some things better than other people, but there must be a thousand individuals, at any given moment, who have the same degree of proficiency in every imaginable skill-set. Also, in professions more complicated than a sport, the skills are applied in such a variety of ways, in such a variety of tasks, that they're impossible to compare. In sports, it's simpler, because sport is entirely artificial. Being top is about winning. Even so, there is always an element of chance and fallible human judgment in determining "the top" of any heap. What brings people together? Not the compulsion to climb over other people to get to some imaginary top. That one has been answered: because somebody saw a chance to profit from the spectacle. You don't need to be paid for that. Yes, and they probably did, long before the players were offered M$24 to go from one team to another. The team might consist of friends who grew up together and play for the town, whose residents would come out to cheer for them - yes, even the ones who can't fork out $400 to sit for 2 hours in a cold, noisy, crowded stadium. Well, if you can have the science as an amateur, why be professional?

Today I learned about Eleanor Roosevelt's part in the civil rights movement and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. She was really an admirable (? awesome) individual. https://www.tvo.org/video/documentaries/eleanor-roosevelt

No, "survivor bias" is a real thing that is popularly applied to all kinds of data. It refers to the misconception that arises from considering only the successful outcomes and disregarding the failure rate. I recently read the synopsis of a very interesting book on the subject, written by a statistician, but it won't be published till sometime this fall. When it comes out, I'll post the particulars for everybody.

Or maybe successful athletes, who make a living from sponsorship and public appearances, won't admit regret to their fans. Besides, how many of the talented children who are pushed and stressed and bullied to excel grow up to be Olympians? Or soloists or headliners or grand masters? What do we know of the ones who didn't make it? This is the perspective of survivor bias I understand. That's why I reiterated that the questions I posed were in response to Beecee's statement I was hoping for clarification from Beecee as to why he considers this inevitable. My answer to you was in that context, attempting to continue on the same track. The separate subject of hierarchies in specific professions and the means whereby these hierarchies are established and status gained is too big for this venue. As for sports in general, I think they're wonderful. So are performing arts, visual arts and games of skill, chance and intellect. What I disapprove of is turning any of these pleasurable, peaceable, inclusive pastimes into cut-throat struggles for supremacy and the pursuit of wealth and fame.

I didn't say that. I was referring to the foregoing discussion of sacrificing childhood, family life and healthy development in order to raise a prodigy in some relatively frivolous pursuit, like skating, dancing, playing rugby or chess. The "people" in this scenario are 3-7 years old. It's not their free or informed choice. Well, that turned out all right for them. I'm glad. But I still wouldn't put my child through it: if they wanted to play, I'd let them play, probably buy them essential equipment; I wouldn't nag them to practice or drive them to 5 am hockey games in a blizzard. In most professions, there is also opportunity, ambition, luck, connections, recognition by an establishment, politics, personal charisma, diplomacy and *money* - without which you're not going to earn the diploma that allows you to compete in the first place, and the earning of which, to a very large extent, determines your professional standing in fields like law or medicine. That's what I meant by not entirely based on ability and no objective system of grading.

That would be natural - if there were an unbiased process of comparing abilities. Sacrifice - or self and others - to be at "the top" should not be a necessary part of that selection. In fact, the 'top' isn't established on an objective scale of competence - or even particularly well defined in most professions. In sport, it is defined by a leagues according its own regulations, and it's a matter of winning contests, often against equally skilled rivals, for that ephemeral # 1 position. The talent may be innate, but the skills are learned, which is a question of opportunity and quality of instruction. So many variables, so little certainty!