Changing waters

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The
>banana

So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

support your argument or credit your character.

That's true, but it isn't relevant.

Why do you do it then?

Because I'm just a stupid ass. But I'm right again, so, there's that.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cu6quf$a7

Quoted message said:

I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a

channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What if you were Vicki Keith?

You didn't even understand the question, did you? I assume she swam the
channel doing butterfly. The fact that she swam the channel doing
butterfly is irrelevant. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
unforeseen situation. She swam butterfly presumably to get into the
record book as having swum the channel doing butterfly. Bravo, Vicki.

Then it is of value - she has a record no one else does.

That's not even a "conceiveable" situation, it's a real one.

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cu6quf$a7

Quoted message said:

I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a

channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What if you were Vicki Keith?

You didn't even understand the question, did you? I assume she swam the
channel doing butterfly. The fact that she swam the channel doing
butterfly is irrelevant. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
unforeseen situation. She swam butterfly presumably to get into the
record book as having swum the channel doing butterfly. Bravo, Vicki.

Then it is of value - she has a record no one else does.

But then none of the other strokes were of any use at all; she was a
1-stroke swimmer.

Quoted message said:

That's not even a "conceiveable" situation, it's a real one.

Yes, and it is irrelevant again, because she swam all the way using one
stroke. Read the banana's question, then think about it, then respond
intelligently or not at all.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a

channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

Quoted message said:

>What if you were Vicki Keith?

You didn't even understand the question, did you? I assume she swam the
channel doing butterfly. The fact that she swam the channel doing
butterfly is irrelevant. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
unforeseen situation. She swam butterfly presumably to get into the
record book as having swum the channel doing butterfly. Bravo, Vicki.

Then it is of value - she has a record no one else does.

But then none of the other strokes were of any use at all; she was a
1-stroke swimmer.

That is irrelevant - it was YOU who said that swimming butterfly would be
"of no value to a channel swimmer in any conceivable situation".

Do you still state this?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

That's an unsupportable assumption - there are many strokes other than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

three competitive ones.

I think there are four. Yes, there are four strokes performed at swim
meets.

There are many more than that performed, but only three are defined.

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a

channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation.

>>What if you were Vicki Keith?
>
>You didn't even understand the question, did you? I assume she swam the
>channel doing butterfly. The fact that she swam the channel doing
>butterfly is irrelevant. She didn't swim butterfly to handle an
>unforeseen situation. She swam butterfly presumably to get into the
>record book as having swum the channel doing butterfly. Bravo, Vicki.

Then it is of value - she has a record no one else does.

But then none of the other strokes were of any use at all; she was a
1-stroke swimmer.

That is irrelevant - it was YOU who said that swimming butterfly would be
"of no value to a channel swimmer in any conceivable situation".

Yes, I did. It referred to the multi-stroke context of the banana's
question. He asked if being able to swim multiple strokes proficiently
would be an advantage when swimming the English Channel. It should be
obvious that if your goal is to swim the english Channel using only
butterfly, then being proficient in multiple strokes is of no value.

Quoted message said:

Do you still state this?

Yes, I do, and you still haven't produced a counter example. The example
of Vicki Keith is not a counter example, since she swam only one stroke
the whole way.

Just give up. You lost as soon as you opened your mouth, because you
didn't read the question.

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>asked if being proficient in all strokes would make a channel
>swimmer better able to make adjustments to unforeseen circumstances.
>Presumably the banana means the four competition strokes,

That's an unsupportable assumption - there are many strokes other than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

three competitive ones.

I think there are four. Yes, there are four strokes performed at swim
meets.

There are many more than that performed, but only three are defined.

I'm sure you know there are four competition strokes. I don't care
whether crawlstroke is defined or not. When I refer to the four
competition strokes, I mean crawl, back, breast and fly. You know that.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>The
>>banana
>
>
>So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing

to

Quoted message said:

>support your argument or credit your character.

That's true, but it isn't relevant.

Why do you do it then?

Because I'm just a stupid ass.

Do you take pride in this?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are many more than that performed, but only three are defined.

I'm sure you know there are four competition strokes. I don't care
whether crawlstroke is defined or not.

How can you berate others for not defining terms, and ignore such
definitions yourself?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a
>
>channel swimmer in any
>conceivable situation.
>
>
>
>>>What if you were Vicki Keith?
>>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you still state this?

Yes, I do, and you still haven't produced a counter example. The example
of Vicki Keith is not a counter example, since she swam only one stroke
the whole way.

One stroke was not what you were asking for - you said BUTTERFLY in "...ANY
concieveable situation".

An example was provided for you; not just a conceivable one, but a real one.
How can you deny this?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I did understand it. To be able to handle unforeseen situations while
swimming across the English Channel, I can see no advantage to being
able to swim multiple strokes.

Quoted message said:

It will be an advantage to be
able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for the
same reason,

Which is it?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I asked: If you were in the water, out
past the surf line, say, 100m from shore, and you were wearing fins,
could you use the well-known technique odf swimming under the waves to
survive a tsunami?

No, you asked if a tsunami was a compression wave. It isn't.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a bit in there that goes;"Even on my back the waves ran over my
head, so I had to time my breaths carefully."
Does that mean that the same thing happens when trying to float, say
5-20 metres from the beech, in say water no more than 2.5m deep?

You've never actually seen surf, have you?

This degree of presumption is extaordinary.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cu8bf3$> >>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because I'm just a stupid ass.

Do you take pride in this?

I'm not really a stupid ass. I just say I am in case someone out there
might be feeling inferior.

Who do you think that is?

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>>>The
>>>banana
>>
>>
>>So is calling people names - but insults are not facts, and do nothing

to

>>support your argument or credit your character.
>
>That's true, but it isn't relevant.

Why do you do it then?

Because I'm just a stupid ass.

Do you take pride in this?

I'm not really a stupid ass. I just say I am in case someone out there
might be feeling inferior.

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>>>I think that being proficient in butterfly would be of no value to a
>>
>>channel swimmer in any
>>conceivable situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What if you were Vicki Keith?
>>>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you still state this?

Yes, I do, and you still haven't produced a counter example. The example
of Vicki Keith is not a counter example, since she swam only one stroke
the whole way.

One stroke was not what you were asking for - you said BUTTERFLY in "...ANY
concieveable situation".

An example was provided for you; not just a conceivable one, but a real one.
How can you deny this?

Goodness, gracious me! Your example did not apply to either of the
situations addressed by the two questions the banana asked! The example
of Vicki Keith doesn't fit either case. It is irrelevant. I'm sorry you
can't understand this, but you aren't even in the ballpark.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One stroke was not what you were asking for - you said BUTTERFLY in

"...ANY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

concieveable situation".

An example was provided for you; not just a conceivable one, but a real

one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can you deny this?

Goodness, gracious me! Your example did not apply to either of the
situations addressed by the two questions the banana asked!

But I wasn't answering someone else's question - I was answering yours:

"Can you think of a situation in which a channel swimmer would be better
off swimming butterfly?"

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>There are many more than that performed, but only three are defined.

I'm sure you know there are four competition strokes. I don't care
whether crawlstroke is defined or not.

How can you berate others for not defining terms, and ignore such
definitions yourself?

There is a stroke called the crawl stroke. Sometimes it is called the
Australian crawl. I don't know why. I don't care if FINA doesn't define
it. Quite a lot of people swim it in FINA sanctioned swim meets. I swim
it quite often myself. Do you know the stroke I'm talking about?

How does that excuse you applying diferent standards to yourself versus
others?

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I did understand it. To be able to handle unforeseen situations while
swimming across the English Channel, I can see no advantage to being
able to swim multiple strokes.

Quoted message said:

It will be an advantage to be
able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for the
same reason,

Which is it?

Neither. Please stop taking my quotes out of context.

I wasn't - they were both in the same post you made. Do you have problems
keeping your context consistent?

jtaylor said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are many more than that performed, but only three are defined.

I'm sure you know there are four competition strokes. I don't care
whether crawlstroke is defined or not.

How can you berate others for not defining terms, and ignore such
definitions yourself?

There is a stroke called the crawl stroke. Sometimes it is called the
Australian crawl. I don't know why. I don't care if FINA doesn't define
it. Quite a lot of people swim it in FINA sanctioned swim meets. I swim
it quite often myself. Do you know the stroke I'm talking about?

Nevermind. Everyone else does.