"You said originally: You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
And then: ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.
If *I* were to play the game with the net at both heights, it would require a change in rule 2.1.1."
No, it wouldn't. The rule wouldn't change, as it covers BOTH heights. ONE rule, TWO specifications, used a different times. The RULE never changes.
"Maybe I'm dumb too."
No maybe.
"At least I'm polite."
I was too, but I guess you're too dumb to realize that saying the same wrong garbage repeatedly and being totally fucking obtuse will get you treated impolitely.
"If you change them only in certain circumstances, then you can't compare them, so it's not fair to call them the same game."
IT IS THE SAME FUCKING GAME YOU FUCKING MORON. CHANGING SHOES DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. PLAYING IN THE RAIN DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. IT CHANGES THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GAME, BUT NOT THE GAME ITSELF.
Here is the point that you're clearly too fucking stupid to grasp. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS THAT CHANGE IF YOU CHANGE THE NET HEIGHT. YOU DO NOTHING DIFFERENTLY. THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME DO NOT CHANGE.
You seem to think that changing equipment changes the game. Is the game different if I change my socks between games? No. I still use the same skillset to accomplish the same goals using the same actions.
Hopefully you're not too fucking moronic to grasp it this time (but your stupidity has surprised me before).
NO, actually that's exactly wrong. There is ONLY one rule 2.1.1, which sets the net height for both men AND women. The RULE would not change, as there is nothing for it to change to. ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.
Second, is the rule "the game"? Then you're wrong on this front as well. Pass, set, hit. Height of the net changes nothing. Did you see that part where I typed "GAME"? Are you genuinely so moronic that you think "GAME" typed in caps isn't significant, or are you just so dumb that you think "GAME" and "rules" are synonymous?
"If you start changing things like net height that introduces a factor other than skill that could decide your match"
If you introduce a variable that is the same for everyone, then how does that cause an inequity? OH IT DOESN'T! You're wrong here too.
You're wrong, and I'm beginning to suspect you're not a native speaker either. Is it your inability to understand the nuances of English that make you type things that are clearly and unequivocally wrong?
With all due respect, what you posted was ridiculous. I knew you'd post it, but that makes it no less vapid.
Deciding what I think is easy. Helping someone with problems is easy.
Wading through the mire of information tossed about by people who think it's not important to "find the link that discusses the careful checking of the results" BEFORE posting those "results" taxes me to the point of anger. Fighting through the propaganda of people who want to make a point, and are willing to say whatever they need at expense of the truth is NOT easy.
What I meant was "liars make it too hard to justify listening" while what you seem to think I wrote was "I am too lazy to be a good citizen". This says far more about you than it does me.
I know this as fact, if I had chosen to post a link, it wouldn't be dubious like yours was. If I had done the research you claim you've done, I would have been able to find it. You downplay the importance of verifiability. Why? If you cared about truth then verifiability would be very important, but it wasn't to you. Instead you went with the first link you could find that said what you wanted.
"There isn't much moral difference between being a mass murderer"
Thanks for proving my point. You're far more interested in linking to dubious studies and screaming "MASS MURDER!!!!!" than you are in having a rational discussion. How do I know this?
Because you'd have had a real link to a real study if you were interested in discourse. Instead, you're interested in screaming louder than the other guy so in the cacophony, both sets of liars drown each other out.
YOU are what's wrong with political discourse in America. The individual who is far more concerned with attention to their views than the inherent truth of those views, virtually shouting down anyone who calls attention to your facts.
Lastly, you can post a link to a real study if you like, but you'd be missing the point. You should have done it first, but instead you acted as though it weren't important. The reason you think it's not important is EXACTLY why you and those like you disgust me, the idea that truth is a tool to be wielded when it suits you and discarded when you feel it's not necessary.
YOU tire me. Not forming an opinion, or doing research, but fighting off the dogma of groups of people for whom the truth is something they can use to get what they want.
Now tell me how changing net height changes the rules? OH IT DOESN'T! You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
"If your goal posts are 80 yards apart, you're not playing real football anymore."
Football fields have slightly different dimensions. So do baseball diamonds.
The GAME does not change. THE RULES DO NOT CHANGE. I can play THE SAME GAME ON BOTH HEIGHTS WITH NO CHANGE IN THE RULES OF THE GAME AT ALL. Repeat that to yourself until you get it.
"I don't see what's so hard to understand about that"
Because as I said before, you're not listening. Now I believe it's because you're simply to stupid to understand.
I have shown you why you're wrong. You've done nothing but repeat the same wrong statement over and over.
"It should be noted that the "real world human effects" of free trade, while hurtful to middle class Americans, were probably very positive for the citizens of the countries that now have our jobs."
And they're the ones he represents right?
"The "Don't As Don't Tell" policy was progressive for 1993."
Bullshit. It was a cowardly kludge and there was no lack of opinion stating so. You're apologist streak is showing.
"But he did give us..."
And congress had nothing to do with any of those right? RIGHT?
"I'd say top 10, easy"
Of course you would, you're an apologist. Why would we expect you to even attempt to develop an informed opinion?
People like you disgust me. Every time politics come up, you use the opportunity to lavish praise upon your guy, completely at odds with history and overlooking anything negative. Worse, in your case you attempt to twist a large, profound negative into a positive. Think about why you'd do that.
"I made a pretty reasonable argument. The games are different if the rules are different."
NO, rules are not equipment.
"The rules specify what equipment is to be used, therefore if you change the equipment you're changing the rules, "
No, you're changing the equipment, NOT the rules. Changing shoes does not change the rules. Wrong again.
"If I'm wrong, please tell me where. It's the only way I'll learn."
I have, LISTEN and you'll learn. Stop insisting your re-definition of terms is accurate and you'll learn.
"Would you please demonstrate that instead of merely stating it?"
I have. When you have a better argument than "I think rules=equipment even though I've been shown they're not" please make it. Otherwise, save your breath.
"The problem is that the current administration and their supporters have done a very good job of turning everything into "us vs them" and 1/3 of the american public has fallen for it."
This mentality developed long before the current administration. I think you're suffering from selected memory, but if you cast your thoughts back to the Clinton impeachment you might remember the Dems screaming about how the Republicans were simply playing partisan politics.
The "us vs. them" mentality you speak of existed LONG before Bush got into office.
Yes, it's you and people who do what you do. Don't get ruffled, but it's true?
What do I mean?
This
"Bush has certainly done worse than publicly bite the heads off kittens. He has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis [npr.org]"
Now, I'm making no judgment about this statement, but I do know linking to a blurb on NPR that itself says the study may be flawed is not what I'd consider a great way to start. I am certain there are better sources available.
But that's not really the point. The point is, this kind of irresponsible "fact" spewing is epidemic on both sides, and I simply am far too tired of watching them scream "lies" "murder" "impeach" etc. at the expense of being solution oriented. Posts like yours feed that.
Worse still, the number will continue to inflate, so that not long from now it will be "nearly a million" or some such manipulation of reality.
So now, as a responsible consumer of information, I have to wade through a mile of garbage to track down the truth, because it's far more important to "win" than to tell the truth. Some fact "massaging" seems to be accepted, and when the "massaging" itself gets "massaged" suddenly you have a serious information problem.
Not really. I suspect this has very little to do with where we worked and everything to do with the perspective we took to work with us. I worked in MANY schools and child care facilities, and the vast majority of them are exactly as OP described. Your one example does little to nothing to negate that.
"Perhaps you've never been to a doctor -- maybe you can't afford one? -- but doctors don't treat everything as urgent because not everything is urgent."
And you're missing the point killjoe, what happens if you don't have the option of treating something as urgent? OOPS!
"Anyway, I stand by my assertion that if the rules are different they're different games."
The RULES aren't different. The EQUIPMENT is. So you're still wrong.
"In this case it appears that men's volleyball and women's volleyball are different games."
Only to you, because you want to be right, but you're not.
"Open both up to either gender and let the best players win."
Having played at a very high level, let me say, this is moronic. The very best women's players are equivalent to very good high school players. You're simply wrong about everything you posted.
Slashdot Mirror
"You said originally: You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
And then: ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.
If *I* were to play the game with the net at both heights, it would require a change in rule 2.1.1."
No, it wouldn't. The rule wouldn't change, as it covers BOTH heights. ONE rule, TWO specifications, used a different times. The RULE never changes.
"Maybe I'm dumb too."
No maybe.
"At least I'm polite."
I was too, but I guess you're too dumb to realize that saying the same wrong garbage repeatedly and being totally fucking obtuse will get you treated impolitely.
"If you change them only in certain circumstances, then you can't compare them, so it's not fair to call them the same game."
IT IS THE SAME FUCKING GAME YOU FUCKING MORON. CHANGING SHOES DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. PLAYING IN THE RAIN DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. IT CHANGES THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GAME, BUT NOT THE GAME ITSELF.
Here is the point that you're clearly too fucking stupid to grasp. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS THAT CHANGE IF YOU CHANGE THE NET HEIGHT. YOU DO NOTHING DIFFERENTLY. THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME DO NOT CHANGE.
You seem to think that changing equipment changes the game. Is the game different if I change my socks between games? No. I still use the same skillset to accomplish the same goals using the same actions.
Hopefully you're not too fucking moronic to grasp it this time (but your stupidity has surprised me before).
"That's not true. Rule 2.1.1 would change."
NO, actually that's exactly wrong. There is ONLY one rule 2.1.1, which sets the net height for both men AND women. The RULE would not change, as there is nothing for it to change to. ONE rule covers BOTH men and women, so IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RULE IN BOTH CASES.
Second, is the rule "the game"? Then you're wrong on this front as well. Pass, set, hit. Height of the net changes nothing. Did you see that part where I typed "GAME"? Are you genuinely so moronic that you think "GAME" typed in caps isn't significant, or are you just so dumb that you think "GAME" and "rules" are synonymous?
"If you start changing things like net height that introduces a factor other than skill that could decide your match"
If you introduce a variable that is the same for everyone, then how does that cause an inequity? OH IT DOESN'T! You're wrong here too.
You're wrong, and I'm beginning to suspect you're not a native speaker either. Is it your inability to understand the nuances of English that make you type things that are clearly and unequivocally wrong?
With all due respect, what you posted was ridiculous. I knew you'd post it, but that makes it no less vapid.
Deciding what I think is easy. Helping someone with problems is easy.
Wading through the mire of information tossed about by people who think it's not important to "find the link that discusses the careful checking of the results" BEFORE posting those "results" taxes me to the point of anger. Fighting through the propaganda of people who want to make a point, and are willing to say whatever they need at expense of the truth is NOT easy.
What I meant was "liars make it too hard to justify listening" while what you seem to think I wrote was "I am too lazy to be a good citizen". This says far more about you than it does me.
I know this as fact, if I had chosen to post a link, it wouldn't be dubious like yours was. If I had done the research you claim you've done, I would have been able to find it. You downplay the importance of verifiability. Why? If you cared about truth then verifiability would be very important, but it wasn't to you. Instead you went with the first link you could find that said what you wanted.
"There isn't much moral difference between being a mass murderer"
Thanks for proving my point. You're far more interested in linking to dubious studies and screaming "MASS MURDER!!!!!" than you are in having a rational discussion. How do I know this?
Because you'd have had a real link to a real study if you were interested in discourse. Instead, you're interested in screaming louder than the other guy so in the cacophony, both sets of liars drown each other out.
YOU are what's wrong with political discourse in America. The individual who is far more concerned with attention to their views than the inherent truth of those views, virtually shouting down anyone who calls attention to your facts.
Lastly, you can post a link to a real study if you like, but you'd be missing the point. You should have done it first, but instead you acted as though it weren't important. The reason you think it's not important is EXACTLY why you and those like you disgust me, the idea that truth is a tool to be wielded when it suits you and discarded when you feel it's not necessary.
YOU tire me. Not forming an opinion, or doing research, but fighting off the dogma of groups of people for whom the truth is something they can use to get what they want.
"The net height is specified by Rule 2.1.1."
It is a rule. That doesn't change the game.
Now tell me how changing net height changes the rules? OH IT DOESN'T! You could play the game at both heights (or the in between co-ed height) and the game WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
"If your goal posts are 80 yards apart, you're not playing real football anymore."
Football fields have slightly different dimensions. So do baseball diamonds.
The GAME does not change. THE RULES DO NOT CHANGE. I can play THE SAME GAME ON BOTH HEIGHTS WITH NO CHANGE IN THE RULES OF THE GAME AT ALL. Repeat that to yourself until you get it.
"I don't see what's so hard to understand about that"
Because as I said before, you're not listening. Now I believe it's because you're simply to stupid to understand.
I have shown you why you're wrong. You've done nothing but repeat the same wrong statement over and over.
I dislike Hillary because she makes decisions that are politically expedient. She is a career politician who pretends she's not.
I dislike Hillary because she thinks she can put on over on me.
YOU might be a misogynist (explaining why you ran to that explanation) but it's my BS detector that send me away from Hillary.
"It should be noted that the "real world human effects" of free trade, while hurtful to middle class Americans, were probably very positive for the citizens of the countries that now have our jobs."
And they're the ones he represents right?
"The "Don't As Don't Tell" policy was progressive for 1993."
Bullshit. It was a cowardly kludge and there was no lack of opinion stating so. You're apologist streak is showing.
"But he did give us..."
And congress had nothing to do with any of those right? RIGHT?
"I'd say top 10, easy"
Of course you would, you're an apologist. Why would we expect you to even attempt to develop an informed opinion?
People like you disgust me. Every time politics come up, you use the opportunity to lavish praise upon your guy, completely at odds with history and overlooking anything negative. Worse, in your case you attempt to twist a large, profound negative into a positive. Think about why you'd do that.
x8 and counting
"The republicans said the same thing about her husband and he turned out to be an excellent president"
BWAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA.
No. But thanks for the laugh.
"I made a pretty reasonable argument. The games are different if the rules are different."
NO, rules are not equipment.
"The rules specify what equipment is to be used, therefore if you change the equipment you're changing the rules, "
No, you're changing the equipment, NOT the rules. Changing shoes does not change the rules. Wrong again.
"If I'm wrong, please tell me where. It's the only way I'll learn."
I have, LISTEN and you'll learn. Stop insisting your re-definition of terms is accurate and you'll learn.
"Would you please demonstrate that instead of merely stating it?"
I have. When you have a better argument than "I think rules=equipment even though I've been shown they're not" please make it. Otherwise, save your breath.
"The problem is that the current administration and their supporters have done a very good job of turning everything into "us vs them" and 1/3 of the american public has fallen for it."
This mentality developed long before the current administration. I think you're suffering from selected memory, but if you cast your thoughts back to the Clinton impeachment you might remember the Dems screaming about how the Republicans were simply playing partisan politics.
The "us vs. them" mentality you speak of existed LONG before Bush got into office.
Yes, it's you and people who do what you do. Don't get ruffled, but it's true?
What do I mean?
This
"Bush has certainly done worse than publicly bite the heads off kittens. He has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis [npr.org]"
Now, I'm making no judgment about this statement, but I do know linking to a blurb on NPR that itself says the study may be flawed is not what I'd consider a great way to start. I am certain there are better sources available.
But that's not really the point. The point is, this kind of irresponsible "fact" spewing is epidemic on both sides, and I simply am far too tired of watching them scream "lies" "murder" "impeach" etc. at the expense of being solution oriented. Posts like yours feed that.
Worse still, the number will continue to inflate, so that not long from now it will be "nearly a million" or some such manipulation of reality.
So now, as a responsible consumer of information, I have to wade through a mile of garbage to track down the truth, because it's far more important to "win" than to tell the truth. Some fact "massaging" seems to be accepted, and when the "massaging" itself gets "massaged" suddenly you have a serious information problem.
It's simply too tiring.
"so you'll have to take my word for it..."
Not really. I suspect this has very little to do with where we worked and everything to do with the perspective we took to work with us. I worked in MANY schools and child care facilities, and the vast majority of them are exactly as OP described. Your one example does little to nothing to negate that.
"Hey, I agree"
And you're wrong too.
"Don't let the trolls bother you"
I doubt he read your post.
I knew it was you. Why lie when it's so obvious?
Too bad you can't tell the truth. I'll take a typo over your problem any day.
x7 and counting
"I'm not killjoe"
Liar.
"Perhaps you've never been to a doctor -- maybe you can't afford one? -- but doctors don't treat everything as urgent because not everything is urgent."
And you're missing the point killjoe, what happens if you don't have the option of treating something as urgent? OOPS!
Stop posting AC and stop lying about it.
"Anyway, I stand by my assertion that if the rules are different they're different games."
The RULES aren't different. The EQUIPMENT is. So you're still wrong.
"In this case it appears that men's volleyball and women's volleyball are different games."
Only to you, because you want to be right, but you're not.
"Open both up to either gender and let the best players win."
Having played at a very high level, let me say, this is moronic. The very best women's players are equivalent to very good high school players. You're simply wrong about everything you posted.
"killing me"
Still lying I see. I cam dream at least.
x6 and counting
Nope, you're wrong.
Volleyball has different net heights or men and women. The game is EXACTLY the same. The skillset is exactly the same.
Kind of silly to keep replying when you're only making yourself look worse.
There's nothing better than watching someone like you who thinks they have a point fail so utterly at making it.
You're really not very smart at all...
"The rules are the same whether you're a man or a woman."
Not for the sport I played in college. Kind of moots your whole point, huh?
Well I worked in a school too, then before that in child services.
YOU are wrong, GP is dead on.
x5 and counting
x4 and counting
"In that environment I think it is completely appropriate to point out that people who hold such opinions are completely in the wrong."
And you do such an effective job of that by pointing out that the woman's record is significantly less than the men's record.
Pure genius.