Changing waters

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.

jtaylor said:

"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.

Are you really saying I didn't ask the question above? I did ask it.
Several times. We discussed several possible ansers. In the end, we
deided we don't really know the answer, but I, for one, decided I would
try to swim under the wave, and I would do it repeatedly, until the wave
had passed. Do you really claim we were talking about compression waves
during that discussion?

jtaylor said:

"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.

It's a gift.

jtaylor said:

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

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?

I have no idea. I said "in case someone out there..."

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Are you really saying I didn't ask the question above? I did ask it.
Several times. We discussed several possible ansers. In the end, we
deided we don't really know the answer, but I, for one, decided I would
try to swim under the wave, and I would do it repeatedly, until the wave
had passed. Do you really claim we were talking about compression waves
during that discussion?

That was what you wrote in the Subject: header.

Do you often enter a Subject: header and then write about something
completely different?

"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:

[email hidden] wrote:

>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.

It's a gift.

Perhaps you should give it up - it's not helping you any.

jtaylor said:

"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?"

My question was part of a response to the banana's question. You lifted
it out of context. Vicki Keith's swim is not what the banana was asking
about. Therefore it is not relevant. Yes, j, if your intent is to swim
butterfly across the channel, then you are better off swimming
butterfly. That's pretty much tautological, and it has nothing to do
with what the banana and I were discussing. That means it is not
relevant, ie irrelevant *and* tautological.

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]...

>>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?

It doesn't, and I didn't.

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 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.

>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?

There were two contexts, j, both created by different questions asked by
the Belgian banana. Even he didn't mix them up, but you did. I think you
got mixed up, when you didn't understand either of the banan's questions
in the first place.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Are you really saying I didn't ask the question above? I did ask it.
Several times. We discussed several possible ansers. In the end, we
deided we don't really know the answer, but I, for one, decided I would
try to swim under the wave, and I would do it repeatedly, until the wave
had passed. Do you really claim we were talking about compression waves
during that discussion?

That was what you wrote in the Subject: header.

Do you often enter a Subject: header and then write about something
completely different?

Not often, but I certainly did in this case, and it was obvious from the
start. You are probably the only person who didn't get it.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.
>
>
>>It will be an advantage to be
>>able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

keeping your context consistent?

There were two contexts, j, both created by different questions asked by
the Belgian banana.

But you didn't seperate them in your post. Do you often mix up your
contexts like this?

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]...

>[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>>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.

It's a gift.

Perhaps you should give it up - it's not helping you any.

But I'm right. Just because I presume something doesn't mean I am wrong.

"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:

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

"...ANY

Quoted message said:

>concieveable situation".
>
>An example was provided for you; not just a conceivable one, but a real

one.

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?"

My question was part of a response to the banana's question.

No it wasn't. It was in a reply to I question I asked you.

Do you often have trouble remembering what you have written, or to whom?

"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:

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

Are you really saying I didn't ask the question above? I did ask it.
Several times. We discussed several possible ansers. In the end, we
deided we don't really know the answer, but I, for one, decided I would
try to swim under the wave, and I would do it repeatedly, until the wave
had passed. Do you really claim we were talking about compression waves
during that discussion?

That was what you wrote in the Subject: header.

Do you often enter a Subject: header and then write about something
completely different?

Not often, but I certainly did in this case, and it was obvious from the
start.

Why did you do it then?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>The Belgian Banana wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
>>>more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>like swimming across the English Channel?
>>
>>No.
>
>
>Do you have a reference for this?

A reference? No, I don't have a reference.

That is usually the case.

Were you expecting a reference to answer his question? When you ask a
person for directions to Winslow, Colorado, and they give you the
directions, do you then ask them for a reference?

No. because the location of a place is not a matter or opinion.

Quoted message said:

Or when you ask your
wife about her day, and she tells you how her day went, do you ask her
for a reference?

Ditto.

However, if you supply us with an opinion, you should not react with insults
if someone askes you support it with facts.

Quoted message said:

By now you should understand how to prove a logical argument. But you
don't. He asked if being proficient in ALL strokes would benefit a
channel swimmer. He wrote "Would being fairly proficient at ALL
strokes..." emphasis mine. I answered No. You demanded a proof. To prove
the answer No is correct requires demonstrating that being proficient in
one of the strokes provides no benefit to the channel swimmer in
handling unforeseen situations. Being proficient in butterfly provides
no benefit to the channel swimmer in handling unforeseen situations.
Therefore, the answer No is correct. That's my argument.

And here we have another mistake. You presume that because you say that
being able to swim one of the many strokes is of no value to a
cross-channekl swimmer (disproven elsewhere, but we'll leave that for the
moment), so it must follow that being able to swim _any_ strokes other tha
the one a swimmer starts with is of no value.

Are you unable to see the logical flaw there?

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]...

>>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!

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?"

My question was part of a response to the banana's question.

No it wasn't. It was in a reply to I question I asked you.

Yes, it was. Your question was asked in the context of my discussion
with the banana. ie, you butted in to the discussion, and then you got
confused.

Quoted message said:

Do you often have trouble remembering what you have written, or to whom?

I haven't remembered incorrectly. I'm right; you're wrong. I didn't
start any discussion with you. I have been attempting to address the
banana's issues all along. You butt in; you got confused; tough luck.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There were two contexts, j, both created by different questions asked by
the Belgian banana.

But you didn't seperate them in your post. Do you often mix up your
contexts like this?

I think you are the only person who is confused. You can either catch up
or shut up. Your choice. If you persist with this nonsense, I'll stop
responding.

Would that mean that you won'r respond to any thread I participate in?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.
>>
>>
>>>It will be an advantage to be
>>>able to swim breaststroke, so you can rest a bit, or backstroke for

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

keeping your context consistent?

There were two contexts, j, both created by different questions asked by
the Belgian banana.

But you didn't seperate them in your post. Do you often mix up your
contexts like this?

I think you are the only person who is confused. You can either catch up
or shut up. Your choice. If you persist with this nonsense, I'll stop
responding.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you often have trouble remembering what you have written, or to whom?

I haven't remembered incorrectly. I'm right; you're wrong. I didn't
start any discussion with you.

Whay did you ask me this question then:

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

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]...

>>No, you asked if a tsunami was a compression wave. It isn't.
>
>Are you really saying I didn't ask the question above? I did ask it.
>Several times. We discussed several possible ansers. In the end, we
>deided we don't really know the answer, but I, for one, decided I would
>try to swim under the wave, and I would do it repeatedly, until the wave
>had passed. Do you really claim we were talking about compression waves
>during that discussion?

That was what you wrote in the Subject: header.

Do you often enter a Subject: header and then write about something
completely different?

Not often, but I certainly did in this case, and it was obvious from the
start.

Why did you do it then?

I don't know. It's just one of those things, I guess. I'm sorry you got
tripped up by it. I don't think anyone else did. It was poiinted out
very early that a tsunami is not a compression wave. We typically don't
change the subject line, however, and I suppose that is what tripped you
up. Sorry.