Changing waters

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a swimmer is a proficient one-stroke junkie, in the event of the
unexpected, does he have a better chance than someone who can do
several strokes, but not to quite the same level of proficiency as the
1-stroker?
Would someone who is not all that good at any stroke, but capable of
demonstating it, stand as much chance... or less... than someone who is
equally not that good, but can only do 1 stroke?
To what advantage is capacity for variation?
Or even, is there any advantage?

Advantage in what?

Are you asking: If you fell out of a boat in the middle of the ocean,
would being a multi-stroke swimmer be an advantage?

I would answer no.

If you are asking how to get in to the beach through big surf, you need
to be able to swim crawlstroke well; you need to be able to tread water,
and you need to be able to swim under water. You also need to be able to
hold your breath, and you need some stamina, because you might have to
start over several times.

Wouldn't getting to a beach be a possible end of the swimming adventure for
someone who fell out of a boat? And wouldn't the other methods of
propulsion you describe be strokes? And so would not they also be an
advantage to know for someone who fell out of a boat?

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

"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:

You can use multiple strokes in the way I explained to rest and to take
instructions from your crew, but you can rest and take instruction from
your crew without doing any stroke at all, so it isn't an advantage.

Would not it be an advantage in terms of time, or maintaining body
temperature?

I doubt it. Do you have a reference?

Well, many studies have shown that internal heat generation increases with
activity.

If you are not aware of this _very_ basic and long accepted finding you
might find it to your advantage to do some reading in this area.

And of course, remaining motionless for a portion of a timed swim will
increase the time rquired to complete it.

Were you unable to understand that from first principles?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's a very good point. Any footage I've seen of someone swimming
across that stretch of water was doing crawl-stroke, though I wonder if
certain adjustments might have to be made, such as swimming underwater.
You don't say which 1-stroke it was.
Some people are 1-stroke junkies, but it's not crawl.
Perhaps I can adjust my question.
Would being fairly proficient at all strokes enable a swimmer to me
more able to make whatever adjustments might come up if doing something
like swimming across the English Channel?

You're a banana.

Why do you, who claim to be a smart person, make insults like this?

I don't know, but I'm sure the two are not positively correlated.
Sometimes an insult is called for. I don't have a reference for that. I
don't have a reference for this eaither, but I know lots of people, some
smart, some not so smart, and they all use insult now and then, just
like you and me.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're a banana.

Why do you, who claim to be a smart person, make insults like this?

I don't know, but I'm sure the two are not positively correlated.
Sometimes an insult is called for.

How do you decide when to insult someone?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would you think anyone "out there" would feel inferior to you?

The alternative would be for me to think I'm inferior to everybody. I
don't think that. I'm really a very smart guy. I suppose I'm a boring
guy, but I'm very smart. So I would be surprised if the doormats the
banana was talking about didn't feel a little inferior.

Would it have anything to do with your calling other people names?

I don't think so.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about the occasions when you are presuming that you are right?

That would be all of them, so that's kind of a dumb question.

So you statement that you are always right is not based in fact, but merely
presumption?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swimming butterfly?"

This is the context of that question. You lifted the question out of
that context. You lifted it deliberately, because I showed why you were
silly to ask if I had a reference to support my answer No.

But why is that silly - you supplied no reference in the first place?

The banana's question was silly; my response was silly, and your asking
for a reference to my opinion was the silliest of all.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't getting to a beach be a possible end of the swimming adventure

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone who fell out of a boat? And wouldn't the other methods of
propulsion you describe be strokes? And so would not they also be an
advantage to know for someone who fell out of a boat?

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

A reference for what?

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

Quoted message said:

The banana's question was silly; my response was silly, and your asking
for a reference to my opinion was the silliest of all.

Would it be that you thought we should know you would not have any support
for your opinion?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it that you cannot see the double standard, or that you "don't care"?

There is no double standard. If anyone was referring to FINA definitions
of strokes, it was you, and only you.

But _you_ were the first person in the thread to use the word "competitive"
in referring to the strokes - that makes YOU the person who would be
referring to those definitions.

I didn't refer to any definitions. There are four strokes swum at swim
meets, unless you mean that what people do in the 50, 100, 200, 400,
800, and 1500 meter freestyle races is not a stroke. You rarely see
anyone in those races not swim crawlstroke. It does happen, but so
rarely that I'm confident that when I say freestyle, you think
crawlstroke. Am I right?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no double standard. If anyone was referring to FINA definitions
of strokes, it was you, and only you.

But _you_ were the first person in the thread to use the word

"competitive"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in referring to the strokes - that makes YOU the person who would be
referring to those definitions.

I didn't refer to any definitions.

But "the competitive strokes" must mean those defined in the rules of
competition. If you did not want to define strokes in those terms, why did
you use that pharse?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

A reference for what?

I don't know.

Why did you ask the question then?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't getting to a beach be a possible end of the swimming adventure

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone who fell out of a boat? And wouldn't the other methods of
propulsion you describe be strokes? And so would not they also be an
advantage to know for someone who fell out of a boat?

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

A reference for what?

I don't know. I answered you with "I don't think so." Is that acceptible
to you? If not, do you have a reference tyhat might shed more light on
your questions. UI don't think they are interesting, but you must be
curious about the answers, because you asked those questions. I don't
know what else to tell you. I think the answer to your questions is no.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You're a banana.

Why do you, who claim to be a smart person, make insults like this?

I don't know, but I'm sure the two are not positively correlated.
Sometimes an insult is called for.

How do you decide when to insult someone?

I don't even have to think about it. It's like I said, a gift.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

So you were asking for a reference to my opinion.

No, a reference to support your opinion. Do you have any?

I answered that the first time you asked. No, I said, I don't have a
reference, but I do have an argument. And then I gave my argument,
whyich was correct. And then you started with the insults.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

"A reference? No, I don't have a reference. I do have an argument. The
banana 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, but he never
specifies anything, so maybe he means something else. But, assuming he
means the fouyr competition strokes, then I think that being proficient
in butterfly would be of no value to a channel swimmer in any
conceivable situation."

There are no insults in there.

Calling someone a name is usually classed as an insult. Do you not know
this?

You can't be serious. The guy calls himself the aquachimp.

He's a banana, and so are you. If you think being called a banana is an
insult, let's just stop. Shall we stop?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

But one stroke does not equal ALL strokes. Such an argument has a basic
logical flaw.

I see that means something to you, but I have no idea how it applies to me.

Quoted message said:

And, of course, we have seen that swimming butterfy CAN be of benefit to a
cross channel swimmer.

Not in the situationhs we were talking about, so, no, it can'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]...

>You can use multiple strokes in the way I explained to rest and to take
>instructions from your crew, but you can rest and take instruction from
>your crew without doing any stroke at all, so it isn't an advantage.

Would not it be an advantage in terms of time, or maintaining body
temperature?

I doubt it. Do you have a reference?

Well, many studies have shown that internal heat generation increases with
activity.

That's true, but you could do even more activity treading water with an
egg beater kick, *and* take on food and liquid at the same time, *and*
listen to instructions from your crew, so, no there is no advantage to
using multiple strokes to generate heat. If you want to generate heat,
just keep swimming.

Quoted message said:

If you are not aware of this _very_ basic and long accepted finding you
might find it to your advantage to do some reading in this area.

I know all about it. Since you can generate heat just by swimming
harder, there is no advantage to changing strokes to generate heat.
Remember? We're asking about advantages of being a multi-stroke swimmer
over being a 1-stroke swimmer when swimming the english channel. So far,
you haven't listed anything I would call an advantage.

Quoted message said:

And of course, remaining motionless for a portion of a timed swim will
increase the time rquired to complete it.

It's kind of hard to take on food and liguid while swimming, and it is
also hard to hear instructions from your crew. You can, of courtse, but
it is usually just easier to stoip and get it right the first time. And
no one said we were worried about the time anyway. Adn if we are worried
about the time, then we should stop only for refueling and take
instructions during those refueling stops. So, still no advantage to
being a multi-stroke swimmer over being a 1-stroke, crawl swimmer.

Quoted message said:

Were you unable to understand that from first principles?

You haven't come up with any advantages, but now you should be able to
see why your Vicki Keith example does not apply.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about the occasions when you are presuming that you are right?

That would be all of them, so that's kind of a dumb question.

So you statement that you are always right is not based in fact, but merely
presumption?

It is a fact that I am not always right.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

A reference for what?

I don't know.

Why did you ask the question then?

It was an insult, the same insult as when you asked the same question.