Following on from my previous post…
I was really surprised by the sports listed in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and could only think of the word urban to explain them. People might think that snowboarding and skiing in a halfpipe might be more mountain than urban but in fact many of these activities are carried out in indoor ski halls close to large population centres. None of the EB’s sports are particularly life threatening, most are likely to have a sprinkling of broken bones and concussion but at the same time it’s worth noting that safety equipment is usually considered to be a basic requirement. The EB definition is actually a very poor definition to the extreme spirts that many of us have been talking about.
I did a few minutes of research and found this.
It seems to confirm that the sports listed by EB are actually neither extreme nor particularly dangerous.
I go back to a poster from from my teenage;
A ship in harbour is safe but that’s not where a ship is meant to be.
You only live once and I’m already way past the point when I realised that life passes too quickly. The thought of going through life without having been able to live a little really isn’t worth contemplating. It’s easy to wrap people up in cotton wool but that’s a waste when you’re dealing with an organism that has evolved to be fuelled by adrenaline from time to time.
Hi David, and many thanks both for the better definition of ‘extreme sports’ and your view on life. Effectively, we do only live once and life’s already far too short to go about ‘wrapping people up in cotton wool’ (unless of course that’s their personal life choice
For your first part you have to belive a god exists, there is no actual proof and I would love to see some.
Your life is your own but it’s controlled by masses of laws and rules we have to abide by, so really we are not free to do what we wish.
I would imagine that Lidl would refute your suggestion that you cannot eat healthily by using their stores.
Yet another ‘improvement’ initiated by Tony Blair was that domestic science was withdrawn in favour of nutrition which meant that youngsters did not learn to cook. Nutrition also played a part in the GCE syllabus and I clearly remember having to draw diagrams of the alimentary canal in both Domestic Science and Biology.
I certainly eat healthily at Lidl, and keep more euros in my pocket. 12 months ago my doctor advised I should loose weight to avoid diabetes and after taking his advice I changed my diet and am now 14kg lighter with perfect blood sugar and all on Lidl food.
I remember watching a Professor on English TV many moons ago, saying something along the lines of ‘No matter what you do, no matter what to you eat, the death rate stays at a remarkable 100%!’
I think he was right?
Barrie, you are quite right, it’s the crudest kind of confidence trick. If it could be proved you wouldn’t need to have faith.
Reminds me of those people who phone you offering a brilliant share deal. Can’t go wrong, double you investment in a month. Transfer your money right away, you never forgive yourself if you miss this one!
My point was & still is, that some on low wages, benefits etc., have far fewer choices of eating healthily…for some, Lidl is the best choice they can make ; others however are obliged to use the “hard discount” outlets, (that I also mentioned in my response, but was seemingly ignored.)
For many here, I imagine shops such as Lidl are an economic choice; but not because they can’t afford to shop elsewhere.
Much as I detest T. Blair, I’m not sure he can be held responsible for the decline in childrens’ ability to cook, & their subsequent obesity…one of his Tory colleagues could have re-instated HE at any given moment…but maybe Thatch’s model of withdrawing the kids’ milk ration was too much to resist.
For most Lidl is far more than just an economic choice, I thought it had lost its second rate label long ago.
Home economics in UK schools began its downward slope in the Thatcher years when the government decided that all subjects in secondary schools needed to lead to academic grades. That resulted in many of the life skills courses that those schools had traditionally provided needing to include academic rigour and lessons that had once provide basic skills in the practical activities that enhanced life then became specialist science lessons. It was the beginning of the attempt to make all children academics, the path that lead to university entrance becoming the norm. I’m sure individuals have their own opinions of the rights and wrongs of that particular journey.
I didn’t opt to do domestic science or biology but I know how to cook. It isn’t just about schooling as I learnt to cook at home with my family. Not everybody is that lucky and a lot of food choices are made through ignorance and lack of early guidance. It can also be down to sheer laziness as some people, no doubt, choose not to cook from scratch and opt for ready meals, take aways etc. Of course you can eat healthily at whatever shop you go to. It is about choosing the right foods and cooking it in the right way.
Reminds me of the politician who had just discovered that 50% of children were below average intelligence.
“Something must be done! What are we paying these teachers for?”
I couldn’t agree more. I have two children and they are completely different. My daughter got a 1st at Durham University and my son got the 4 GCSEs (no effort whatsoever in the other subjects) that he needed to become an apprentice plumber. Not all children will be academic and the subjects like woodwork, typing, domestic science, metalwork were invaluable to children who aren’t academically motivated
Anyone with a ‘trade’ is more assured of a good living than most academics -especially if we now add Computer and electronic technology under ‘trade’. I make an exception to those who come through an Eton pseudo-education, who seem to infest the higher reaches of British society with ease.
along these lines of the mariners and tribal ways of protecting and encouraging others, how common place is it to be threatened without due cause with ’ porter plainte pour harcèlement’ ? Especially for someone simple , gentle and newly arrived in France ? How seriously should such a verbal threat be taken ? It’s very traumatic. Should you just “let it go” ?
Why can’t people just explain themselves and discuss their problem reasonably ?
I wasn’t there, so I can’t say.
But it is worth bearing in mind that, in addition to the things people say, they also send out non-verbal signals that are harder to read across different cultures. Misunderstandings can happen.
