OT: bad puns or something

http://tinyurl.com/2ted4s

For some reason I have this new appreciation for the Beethoven piano
sonatas.

Hmm.

Hey, speaking of sonatas, Hyundai has a car called a Sonata, right?
Gee, I wonder how their high beams work?

(taps mic)

These are the jokes, folks!

--
Curt

In article <1184014674.191380.203720@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/2ted4s
>
>
> These are the jokes, folks!
>
> --
> Curt

That jpeg was certainly a joke...

Sorry, not a fan of female "bodybuilders".

Fitness, yes, but that pic is a bit extreme for my personal tastes.

To each their own, but you know that kind of women's build only has a
cult following. It'll never be popular with the main stream crowd.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Jul 10, 12:07 pm, Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That jpeg was certainly a joke...
>
> Sorry, not a fan of female "bodybuilders".
>
> Fitness, yes, but that pic is a bit extreme for my personal tastes.
>
> To each their own, but you know that kind of women's build only has a
> cult following. It'll never be popular with the main stream crowd.

I rather doubt that. As society becomes more and more unisex -- not
to mention the transgender aesthetic seeping in (the homosexual look
has already become mainstreamed) -- I would be surprised if this
female bodybuilder kind of look did not become mainstream sexy. Maybe
it'll be another century, perhaps, but it will happen. I mean, you
can only bounce between Rubenesque and Kate Moss for some many
decades, right?

> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real
response.) Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and
reverse wrist curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT
fingering on the keyboard.

Now that my left biceps is injured (doctor visit this Friday), I find
a very weird sensation when practicing piano. You know how piano keys
are attached to strings that are plucked (by hammers)? I kinda feel
like my left arms is like that now...I really feel it straining --
though not in a painful way -- as if doing the last rep of a superset
of concentration curls! And this is right away, not after hours and
hours of practice.

It's definitely weak now...I'm barely curls 30-lbs. dumbbells with the
left (whereas it was 50-lbs. before for both arms [all-time best was
like five reps on a 100-lb. kettebell])...but my piano playing hasn't
suffered, though I feel the muscles straining, just the same...my left
hand still seems as quick and nimble (for a typical third-year
student, that is) but I do feel the discomfort, almost as if I were
curling....



On Jul 9, 4:57 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2ted4s
>
> For some reason I have this new appreciation for the Beethoven piano
> sonatas.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Hey, speaking of sonatas, Hyundai has a car called a Sonata, right?
> Gee, I wonder how their high beams work?
>
> (taps mic)
>
> These are the jokes, folks!
>
> --
> Curt

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Jul 10, 12:07 pm, Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, not a fan of female "bodybuilders". Fitness, yes, but that pic
>>> is a bit extreme for my personal tastes.
>>
>> To each their own, but you know that kind of women's build only has a
>> cult following. It'll never be popular with the main stream crowd.
>
> I rather doubt that. As society becomes more and more unisex -- not
> to mention the transgender aesthetic seeping in (the homosexual look
> has already become mainstreamed) -- I would be surprised if this
> female bodybuilder kind of look did not become mainstream sexy.

I remember a little while ago there was a fashion for the cut look in
women; i think Madonna either started or was an exponent of it. Didn't
last long this time, but there you go.

> Maybe it'll be another century, perhaps, but it will happen. I mean,
> you can only bounce between Rubenesque and Kate Moss for some many
> decades, right?

Kate Moss has never been mainstream sexy. You get bodies like that on the
front cover of Vogue, not the centrefold of Playboy.

The girl in the linked pic, though; if she had a little bit more body fat,
so she didn't have those repulsive veins all over her, she'd be hot. But
then i'm a pervert, so YMMV.

tom

--
Pave the world

In article <1184084240.254517.261730@n60g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 12:07 pm, Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That jpeg was certainly a joke...
> >
> > Sorry, not a fan of female "bodybuilders".
> >
> > Fitness, yes, but that pic is a bit extreme for my personal tastes.
> >
> > To each their own, but you know that kind of women's build only has a
> > cult following. It'll never be popular with the main stream crowd.
>
> I rather doubt that. As society becomes more and more unisex -- not
> to mention the transgender aesthetic seeping in (the homosexual look
> has already become mainstreamed) -- I would be surprised if this
> female bodybuilder kind of look did not become mainstream sexy. Maybe
> it'll be another century, perhaps, but it will happen. I mean, you
> can only bounce between Rubenesque and Kate Moss for some many
> decades, right?

Whatever floats your boat... ;-)

Like tastes on the cooking lists, YMMV.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Jul 10, 2:08 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I remember a little while ago there was a fashion for the cut look in
> women; i think Madonna either started or was an exponent of it. Didn't
> last long this time, but there you go.

Cut, yes (and yeech -- I don't need a girl that looks like a rickshaw
coolie), but that other one, in the pic, was also massive (too manly
looking, though I wouldn't say she's ugly, necessarily). I don't
think that's ever been "in" yet, but I'm predicting it will be, for
the reasons ascribed.

> Kate Moss has never been mainstream sexy. You get bodies like that on the
> front cover of Vogue, not the centrefold of Playboy.

Actually, Playboy centerfolds were skinnier in the time of Kate Moss.
Even now, with J. Lo making the latinass mainstream, their models tend
to be kinda flat on the backside.

> The girl in the linked pic, though; if she had a little bit more body fat,
> so she didn't have those repulsive veins all over her, she'd be hot. But
> then i'm a pervert, so YMMV.

Well, I don't think there can be any perversion when it comes to
heterosexuality -- matters of taste are not matters of appetite, and
therefore not under moral jurisdiction.

> tom
>
> --
> Pave the world

Prisoner at War wrote:
> Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
> playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real
> response.) Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and
> reverse wrist curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT
> fingering on the keyboard.

Interesting.

I'm guessing that as your fingers are mostly bone, cartilage,
ligaments, and teeeeny tiiiiiny muscles that wouldn't have much impact
on your keying ability or lack thereof. Uh, I may have my reasoning
egregiously INcorrect (note to Cohen), however my assumption remains.

> Now that my left biceps is injured (doctor visit this Friday), I find

Best of luck with the doc. Wishing you ye olde full 'n speedy
recovery.

> a very weird sensation when practicing piano. You know how piano keys
> are attached to strings that are plucked (by hammers)? I kinda feel
> like my left arms is like that now...I really feel it straining --
> though not in a painful way -- as if doing the last rep of a superset
> of concentration curls! And this is right away, not after hours and
> hours of practice.
>
> It's definitely weak now...I'm barely curls 30-lbs. dumbbells with the
> left (whereas it was 50-lbs. before for both arms [all-time best was
> like five reps on a 100-lb. kettebell])...but my piano playing hasn't
> suffered, though I feel the muscles straining, just the same...my left
> hand still seems as quick and nimble (for a typical third-year
> student, that is) but I do feel the discomfort, almost as if I were
> curling....

re http://tinyurl.com/2ted4s

and an associated Beethoven piano sonatas joke as there is a poster of
the aforementioned appearing behind the female bodybuilder

--
Curt

Tom Anderson wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > Omelet wrote:
>
> >>> Sorry, not a fan of female "bodybuilders". Fitness, yes, but that pic
> >>> is a bit extreme for my personal tastes.
>
> >> To each their own, but you know that kind of women's build only has a
> >> cult following. It'll never be popular with the main stream crowd.

Okay.

If you'd ever seen a pic of Sharon Arrildt/Marvel or Claudia
Montemaggi, well, I suspect you'd change your tune. Hubba frigging
HUBBA (imo - to each his or her own, of course)!

> > I rather doubt that. As society becomes more and more unisex -- not
> > to mention the transgender aesthetic seeping in (the homosexual look
> > has already become mainstreamed) -- I would be surprised if this
> > female bodybuilder kind of look did not become mainstream sexy.

Okay.

> I remember a little while ago there was a fashion for the cut look in
> women; i think Madonna

I'm placing it at Linda 'T2' Hamilton's doorstep.

> either started or was an exponent of it. Didn't last long this time, but there
> you go.
>
> > Maybe it'll be another century, perhaps, but it will happen. I mean,
> > you can only bounce between Rubenesque and Kate Moss for some many
> > decades, right?
>
> Kate Moss has never been mainstream sexy. You get bodies like that on the
> front cover of Vogue, not the centrefold of Playboy.

God bless Hugh.

> The girl in the linked pic, though; if she had a little bit more body fat,
> so she didn't have those repulsive veins all over her, she'd be hot. But
> then i'm a pervert, so YMMV.

Sicko.

> tom

;o)

--
Curt

In article <1184099646.948258.151810@22g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
> > playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real
> > response.) Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and
> > reverse wrist curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT
> > fingering on the keyboard.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I'm guessing that as your fingers are mostly bone, cartilage,
> ligaments, and teeeeny tiiiiiny muscles that wouldn't have much impact
> on your keying ability or lack thereof. Uh, I may have my reasoning
> egregiously INcorrect (note to Cohen), however my assumption remains.

I had a professor tell me that my ability to produce large amounts of
force (in olympic lifts, squats, etc.) hinders fine motor control.
Basically his assumption was that motor patterns are limited and
strength/force/power training means that fine motor skills are lost.
since I don't dance or anything I couldn't really tell, but my guitar
playing doesn't seem affected a whole pile.

So I'm inclined to call bull on the prof and agree with you. But I just
wanted to point out there is a contrary school of thought out there...

Basically by triathlon endurance weenies tho. Even as a doctorate in
kinesiology I think that marrs his credibility...

:^|

--
Keith

Hobbes wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Prisoner at War wrote:
> > > Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
> > > playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real
> > > response.) Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and
> > > reverse wrist curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT
> > > fingering on the keyboard.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> > I'm guessing that as your fingers are mostly bone, cartilage,
> > ligaments, and teeeeny tiiiiiny muscles that wouldn't have much impact
> > on your keying ability or lack thereof. Uh, I may have my reasoning
> > egregiously INcorrect (note to Cohen), however my assumption remains.
>
> I had a professor tell me that my ability to produce large amounts of
> force (in olympic lifts, squats, etc.) hinders fine motor control.
> Basically his assumption was that motor patterns are limited and
> strength/force/power training means that fine motor skills are lost.
> since I don't dance or anything I couldn't really tell, but my guitar
> playing doesn't seem affected a whole pile.
>
> So I'm inclined to call bull on the prof and agree with you.

Your MFW cachet is taking a hit, Keith.

(In other words, agreeing with me will get you nowhere. Appreciated,
however.)

> But I just wanted to point out there is a contrary school of thought
> out there...

That much is a given, yes? There's ALWAYS a contrary school of
thought.

> Basically by triathlon endurance weenies tho. Even as a doctorate in
> kinesiology I think that marrs his credibility...
>
> :^|

Hmm.

--
Curt

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2:08 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> I remember a little while ago there was a fashion for the cut look in
>> women; i think Madonna either started or was an exponent of it. Didn't
>> last long this time, but there you go.
>
> Cut, yes (and yeech -- I don't need a girl that looks like a rickshaw
> coolie), but that other one, in the pic, was also massive (too manly
> looking, though I wouldn't say she's ugly, necessarily). I don't think
> that's ever been "in" yet, but I'm predicting it will be, for the
> reasons ascribed.

I think it would require mainstream men to get over the macho attitude
that associates strength with masculinity. I'm not saying this won't
happen; i guess that's the interesting question.

>> Kate Moss has never been mainstream sexy. You get bodies like that on the
>> front cover of Vogue, not the centrefold of Playboy.
>
> Actually, Playboy centerfolds were skinnier in the time of Kate Moss.
> Even now, with J. Lo making the latinass mainstream, their models tend
> to be kinda flat on the backside.

True. The canonical playboy look is actually pretty skinny, just with huge
breasts. And no pubic hair. Whose idea was that? Yuck. So, possibly a poor
example. What do the women look like in Hustler and Penthouse look like?
I'm too sophisticated to read those, and i'm at work, so i'm not about to
go looking.

>> The girl in the linked pic, though; if she had a little bit more body
>> fat, so she didn't have those repulsive veins all over her, she'd be
>> hot. But then i'm a pervert, so YMMV.
>
> Well, I don't think there can be any perversion when it comes to
> heterosexuality

A lovely bit of subtle homophobia there! classily done!

> -- matters of taste are not matters of appetite, and therefore not under
> moral jurisdiction.

I don't think i really understand what you're saying. But seriously, i'm a
pervert.

tom

--
Please! Undo clips before opening handle.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:

> In article <1184099646.948258.151810@22g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
>>> playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real response.)
>>> Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and reverse wrist
>>> curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT fingering on the
>>> keyboard.
>>
>> I'm guessing that as your fingers are mostly bone, cartilage,
>> ligaments, and teeeeny tiiiiiny muscles that wouldn't have much impact
>> on your keying ability or lack thereof.
>
> I had a professor tell me that my ability to produce large amounts of
> force (in olympic lifts, squats, etc.) hinders fine motor control.
> Basically his assumption was that motor patterns are limited and
> strength/force/power training means that fine motor skills are lost.
> since I don't dance or anything I couldn't really tell, but my guitar
> playing doesn't seem affected a whole pile.

Yebbut your guitar playing is thrash metal power chords anyway, right?

tom

--
Please! Undo clips before opening handle.

On Jul 11, 10:03 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> I think it would require mainstream men to get over the macho attitude
> that associates strength with masculinity. I'm not saying this won't
> happen; i guess that's the interesting question.

I can't believe so-called "mainstream men" are wearing earrings and
ponytails with pink striped shorts at the gym. If that's do-able,
then muscular women being mainstream sexy is the Next Big Thing.
It'll be some years yet, but it will happen.

> True. The canonical playboy look is actually pretty skinny, just with huge
> breasts. And no pubic hair. Whose idea was that? Yuck. So, possibly a poor
> example. What do the women look like in Hustler and Penthouse look like?
> I'm too sophisticated to read those, and i'm at work, so i'm not about to
> go looking.

About the same, from what I remember. I think Penthouse and Hustler
-- Hustler in particular -- were known for having triple-x photos
(penetration or stuff like that), whereas Playboy was just "art
museum" poses.

> A lovely bit of subtle homophobia there! classily done!

"Homophobia" is an unfortunate misnomer. I think most people are just
disgusted by it, more than "fear" per se.

Fact is, homosexuality is a perversion. The Gay Lobby is now
recruiting evolutionary theory to explain their place in the greater
order of things, but the thesis that nature makes some gay in order to
protect their siblings' genes is for now a fanciful invention for a
political need.

> I don't think i really understand what you're saying. But seriously, i'm a
> pervert.

Unless sex is a means for the expression of one's neuroses, there is
no perversion involved. I believe that gays have a psychological as
well as a biological mutation or perversion which makes them the way
they are. Like biceps that don't respond to concentration curls.
Just ain't natural, though it exists.

> tom
>
> --
> Please! Undo clips before opening handle.

On Jul 10, 4:34 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> I'm guessing that as your fingers are mostly bone, cartilage,
> ligaments, and teeeeny tiiiiiny muscles that wouldn't have much impact
> on your keying ability or lack thereof. Uh, I may have my reasoning
> egregiously INcorrect (note to Cohen), however my assumption remains.

Thing is, don't wrist and reverse wrist curls work the digital
extensors and flexors? Which I believe are involved in keyboarding as
well...certainly one's whole body can get into it when one's really
into it...right now, my being aware of the strain (in my left arm --
including biceps now!) does seems to cause a slight performance hit,
insofar as I would naturally slow down or stop, same as if I were
pumping iron and suddenly felt an odd sensation; even if it wasn't
painful, I'd want to "investigate" it by slowing down or stopping and
being more attuned to that part of the body...so in that sense my
piano playing, such as it is, has suffered...the element of fear is
introduced...not just the fear of hitting a wrong note while flying
across the keys, but maybe suddenly fucking myself up somehow (hey,
until I had my back injury I never would have guessed that "hard"
running could do that)....

> Best of luck with the doc. Wishing you ye olde full 'n speedy
> recovery.

Thanks; I'm very curious to see what the MRI would show. Wish I could
get 'em in color, though!

> rehttp://tinyurl.com/2ted4s
>
> and an associated Beethoven piano sonatas joke as there is a poster of
> the aforementioned appearing behind the female bodybuilder

Yes. I'd love to meet a physically fit gal who's into classical
piano!

I only wonder if this girl of yours has some seriously strong vaginal
muscles, maybe....

> --
> Curt

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Jul 11, 10:03 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> I think it would require mainstream men to get over the macho attitude
>> that associates strength with masculinity. I'm not saying this won't
>> happen; i guess that's the interesting question.
>
> I can't believe so-called "mainstream men" are wearing earrings and
> ponytails with pink striped shorts at the gym.

Me neither. I submit that your gym may not be entirely populated by
upstanding members of the macho-heterosexualist community.

> If that's do-able, then muscular women being mainstream sexy is the Next
> Big Thing. It'll be some years yet, but it will happen.

I hope so. A muscular bum, in particular, is a wonderful sight on a girl.

>> True. The canonical playboy look is actually pretty skinny, just with huge
>> breasts. And no pubic hair. Whose idea was that? Yuck. So, possibly a poor
>> example. What do the women look like in Hustler and Penthouse look like?
>
> About the same, from what I remember. I think Penthouse and Hustler --
> Hustler in particular -- were known for having triple-x photos
> (penetration or stuff like that), whereas Playboy was just "art museum"
> poses.

I should start going to art museums more often!

>> A lovely bit of subtle homophobia there! classily done!
>
> "Homophobia" is an unfortunate misnomer. I think most people are just
> disgusted by it, more than "fear" per se.

The combining form -phobia is pretty well established as being able to
mean 'an aversion to' as well as strictly 'fear of', so etymologically,
it's a reasonably sound term.

> Fact is, homosexuality is a perversion.

I guess i'm not sure what you mean by 'perversion'. Homosexuality is a
minority condition, and it's not reproductively productive (barring the
funky stuff you dimiss below), but i'm not sure i'd say that justifies the
term. 'Perversion' has a moral weight which i don't think you can apply to
homosexuality. Would you like to expand on your thinking here?

> The Gay Lobby is now recruiting evolutionary theory to explain their
> place in the greater order of things, but the thesis that nature makes
> some gay in order to protect their siblings' genes is for now a fanciful
> invention for a political need.

It's certainly an unproven hypothesis at this point.

tom

--
mesokurtotic

On Jul 10, 11:29 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Actually, I'm still wondering whether working out affects piano-
> playing in any way. (I'd asked that a while ago to no real
> response.) Specifically, I wonder whether something like wrist and
> reverse wrist curls help or hinder agility and muscle memory WRT
> fingering on the keyboard.

Not sure about wrist curls, but I have found upper-body weight
training in general to be very beneficial in keeping my hands
functional at the keyboard and dealing with my repetitive-strain
injuries.

LM

On Jul 11, 5:20 pm, "purple_bov...@yahoo.com"
<purple_bov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure about wrist curls, but I have found upper-body weight
> training in general to be very beneficial in keeping my hands
> functional at the keyboard and dealing with my repetitive-strain
> injuries.
>
> LM


Would you elaborate, please? I do a lot of upper-body weight training
and I'm not sure I've noticed any difference at the keyboard....

On Jul 11, 1:07 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
>
> Me neither. I submit that your gym may not be entirely populated by
> upstanding members of the macho-heterosexualist community.

Actually, I had in mind them muscle mags. That's just the thing, see:
I haven't met anybody who looks like that in the gym. The worst --
and it's bad enough -- are the earrings and tats, ye olde metrosexual
look. Short pink striped tights have yet to be mainstreamed, it
seems, except within muscle magazines.

> I hope so. A muscular bum, in particular, is a wonderful sight on a girl.

Where that's concerned on a girl, I'm more concerned with shape,
instead of actual "composition."

I agree, though, that a combination like what you find on that negress
Venus Williams is quite "provocative"....

> I should start going to art museums more often!

Actually, try studio art classes -- you know, the kind with naked
women modeling....

> The combining form -phobia is pretty well established as being able to
> mean 'an aversion to' as well as strictly 'fear of', so etymologically,
> it's a reasonably sound term.

"Aversion to," you say? Yeah, from fear!

Which is why it's such an unfortunate misnomer. It allows the pansies
to claim more masculinity than warranted.

> I guess i'm not sure what you mean by 'perversion'.

Do you mean kidnapping and sexual slavery?

Kid's stuff.

"Perversion" for me, here, means "against nature." Heterosexuality is
not against nature. Heterosexual urges are not against nature.
Hence, a heterosexual's expression of sexuality cannot, by definition,
be perversion. (Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but I don't want to
get into too prolonged a discussion here....)

> Homosexuality is a
> minority condition, and it's not reproductively productive (barring the
> funky stuff you dimiss below), but i'm not sure i'd say that justifies the
> term. 'Perversion' has a moral weight which i don't think you can apply to
> homosexuality. Would you like to expand on your thinking here?

I don't mean "perversion" here in any "moral" sense, and certainly not
in a traditionally moral sense.

To me, homosexuality is just a biological error, like retardation. It
happens, but it's an error, a mistake. This is why I haven't anything
against homos in the way some Jesus Freak might, but neither do I
think that it's just "okay" and couldn't care less if my own children
turned out that way. No: it is an error, and I would hope for a cure
the way I hope for science to one day prevent something like mental
retardation or dwarfism.

In the meantime, I do not support discrimination against gays, etc. --
but I honestly do believe it to be a biological error. Not a sin
against God so much as a sin of God, shall we say.

> It's certainly an unproven hypothesis at this point.

It's the kind of thing for which no test could be constructed. Which
is why it's such an effective propaganda tool for gays.

> tom
>
> --
> mesokurtotic

In article
<khobman800-AC1ECD.14520610072007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I had a professor tell me that my ability to produce large amounts of
> force (in olympic lifts, squats, etc.) hinders fine motor control.
> Basically his assumption was that motor patterns are limited and
> strength/force/power training means that fine motor skills are lost.
> since I don't dance or anything I couldn't really tell, but my guitar
> playing doesn't seem affected a whole pile.
>
> So I'm inclined to call bull on the prof and agree with you. But I just
> wanted to point out there is a contrary school of thought out there...
>
> Basically by triathlon endurance weenies tho. Even as a doctorate in
> kinesiology I think that marrs his credibility...
>
> :^|
>
> --
> Keith

Everybody has "pet" theories...

Fer instance:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...f/FlatHome.htm
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Jul 10, 4:52 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had a professor tell me that my ability to produce large amounts of
> force (in olympic lifts, squats, etc.) hinders fine motor control.

It does stand to reason. But, on the other hand (ahem), stronger
forearm muscles through exercises like wrist curls should make for
stronger fingering, at least, even if less fine...I haven't seem to
notice either case in myself yet....

> Basically his assumption was that motor patterns are limited and
> strength/force/power training means that fine motor skills are lost.
> since I don't dance or anything I couldn't really tell, but my guitar
> playing doesn't seem affected a whole pile.

Yup, none here, either, WRT keyboarding skills. But with my recent
left arm injury, I notice the muscles now when practicing piano. I
feel them "straining," I feel them moving, I'm just aware of them
without meaning to be, they're sending signals, not quite pain, and
not quite discomfort, either (for the most part), but they're no
longer in the background like they used to be.

So I wonder.

> So I'm inclined to call bull on the prof and agree with you. But I just
> wanted to point out there is a contrary school of thought out there...

Most piano exercises seem to really focus on motor skills like
coordination, even though they also claim to develop finger strength,
particularly the problem fourth and fifth fingers (sure the thumb
isn't technically a finger but in music it's counted as one).

I would be great if there were actual physical exercises one can
perform in the gym to help develop their actual strength and agility.

> Basically by triathlon endurance weenies tho. Even as a doctorate in
> kinesiology I think that marrs his credibility...
>
> :^|
>
> --
> Keith

Prisoner at War wrote:
[...]

> <snip> that negress <snip>

Okay, Imus.

Negress? This I gotta Google.

Yup.

"n. Offensive"

STOP THAT.

> Actually, try studio art classes -- you know, the kind with naked
> women modeling....

Btdt. Maybe in Manhattan, but not all of them look so sexxxaaaaaay in
the life drawing classes I've attended. And, for that matter, they're
not all female models. AND on top of that (no pun), life drawing turns
the nude form into trigonometry (uh, if trig's difficult for you, that
is). Not what I'd call romantic. At all.

[...]

> Which is why it's such an unfortunate misnomer. It allows the pansies
> to claim more masculinity than warranted.

Then how do you explain that "sissy" Rock Hudson? Duh. I think ol'
McMillan could claim slightly more masculinity than most. Be they
heterosexual or homosexual. Ymmv.

> "Perversion" for me, here, means "against nature." Heterosexuality is
> not against nature. Heterosexual urges are not against nature.
> Hence, a heterosexual's expression of sexuality cannot, by definition,
> be perversion. (Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but I don't want to
> get into too prolonged a discussion here....)

Too late.

> To me, homosexuality is <snip> an error, a mistake. <snip>
> No: it is an error, and I would hope for a cure the way I hope
> for science to one day prevent something like mental
> retardation or dwarfism. <snip> I honestly do believe it to
> be a biological error. Not a sin against God so much as
> a sin of God, shall we say.

> It's the kind of thing for which no test could be constructed.

Here's your test: Did you, at some point in your life, say to
yourself, "So, today I will choose whether I like boys, girls, or
both."

I'm guessing the answer is no. I'm guessing that you, like me, and
bajillions of other men just KNEW that wimmens wuz it. That the ladies
was what tripped our trigger. That it was Kim Basinger who you wanted
to tackle and NOT Alec Baldwin.

A test. You don't need a test. That's absurd. You're sexually
attracted to whoever you're sexually attracted to. It's as natural as
breathing.

Likewise, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Natural. No
mistake. It just is.

> Which is why it's such an effective propaganda tool for gays.

And you're the poster boy for tolerance. ;o)

Hey, I'm not trying to piss you off, honestly. Enjoy your opinion.

Hmmm, does Robert Schuh have you kill filed? I mean, where's the 1992
NPC Mr. "Hey, stop being a homophobic bigot!" hiding? Can't believe he
hasn't chimed in.

Anyway.

--
Curt

On Jul 12, 8:10 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, Imus.

Hey, nothing Imus did that black radio personalities haven't, either.
As a matter of fact, it was the height of hypocrisy for Al Sharpton to
have lead the charge. Seems like no one remembers his resume from the
'80s and early '90s....

> Negress? This I gotta Google.
>
> Yup.
>
> "n. Offensive"
>
> STOP THAT.

I don't care if it's "offensive." The word fits. Venus Williams
conjures up all the connotations of the word "negress." She's really
black. And extremely shapely (blacks are associated with
hypersexuality, after all). But really strong, and thus masculine
(negresses were supposed to be stronger than the men, etc.).

Etc.

> Btdt. Maybe in Manhattan, but not all of them look so sexxxaaaaaay in
> the life drawing classes I've attended. And, for that matter, they're
> not all female models. AND on top of that (no pun), life drawing turns
> the nude form into trigonometry (uh, if trig's difficult for you, that
> is). Not what I'd call romantic. At all.

Maybe you did a Picasso on her and turned her into geometric shapes on
your sketch pad, but they don't typically hire fat old broads to do
modeling for studio art, no.

> Then how do you explain that "sissy" Rock Hudson? Duh. I think ol'
> McMillan could claim slightly more masculinity than most. Be they
> heterosexual or homosexual. Ymmv.

He's an "actor."

Google it.

> Too late.

Never. But until I start repeating myself (too much), I don't mind.
I mean, this is MFW...after steroids and Western Civilization, there's
nothing else to talk about but faggots.

> Here's your test: Did you, at some point in your life, say to
> yourself, "So, today I will choose whether I like boys, girls, or
> both."
>
> I'm guessing the answer is no. I'm guessing that you, like me, and
> bajillions of other men just KNEW that wimmens wuz it. That the ladies
> was what tripped our trigger. That it was Kim Basinger who you wanted
> to tackle and NOT Alec Baldwin.
>
> A test. You don't need a test. That's absurd. You're sexually
> attracted to whoever you're sexually attracted to. It's as natural as
> breathing.
>
> Likewise, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Natural. No
> mistake. It just is.

Disease is "natural." But it is not the "natural" state of the body
to be diseased.

Obviously, I mean "natural" in what philosophers call a "normative"
way, not a "descriptive" way. Not that gays are "natural" in a
descriptive sense of the word, either (even they acknowledge that they
are a minority).

Ultimately, you've missed the point of my remarks, which is that
homosexuality is a biological error, just like mental retardation.

Hey, a retard doesn't choose to be stupid. And neither does a homo
choose to be homo. But both conditions are not natural.

> And you're the poster boy for tolerance. ;o)

Indeed I am. I am all for the truth. Truth -- understanding -- is
what begets "tolerance." Not fashion trends.

I tolerate gays the same way I tolerate retards. To me, it's just a
biological error.

> Hey, I'm not trying to piss you off, honestly. Enjoy your opinion.
>
> Hmmm, does Robert Schuh have you kill filed? I mean, where's the 1992
> NPC Mr. "Hey, stop being a homophobic bigot!" hiding? Can't believe he
> hasn't chimed in.

Even The Shoe must tire of fighting the truth constantly.

> Anyway.
>
> --
> Curt