The modus vivendi of this blog is plainly self explanatory. Pathetically,'progressives' regularly promote implausable, impractical or plainly asinine ideas. Who but socialists could for decades abuse the term 'economic rationalism' - without humiliation? THIS GOES TO THE VERY HEART OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND RATIONAL GOVERNMENT: TO WIT TO NOT CRITICIZE THE CONSERVATIVES AS BEING 'RATIONAL'!
My other main blog:
Subject: Shrieking at the tennis and other
Shrieking at the tennis and other
Peter Crammond is correct in his letter about what is
plainly yet another strange acceptance of unsportsman - like [woman!] behaviour
from mainly female tennis players. ''Caterwauling and shrieking noises''
Letters 26 - 7 /
But tennis has so many
Having gained an advantage over your opponent - and injuries are
only one manifestation - the disadvantaged dear gets a nice massage - or is
allowed disparate interruptions to the game!
remember the strange wet - bulb thermometer rule a couple of years ago? It was
used to torture tennis players on hot days. All to satisfy an ethic idiotic
about the tournament remaining 'open' - irrespective of the trauma to players
'let' rule is absurd, the 'deuce - advantage' scenario which makes tennis into
derivated cricket matches have major procedural flaws.
that the administrators care - they have sponsors all over them - and none
MODERN tennis was invented in 1872 with the first Wimbledon in 1877.
For the next 120 years all players, including those top-ranked, were able to participate in this sport in near silence. Why then is it necessary for many players, particularly women, to accentuate their shot-making with various caterwauling and shrieking noises, apart from it being a means of disadvantaging their opponents? Has there been a study on how many TVs get switched off when these screamers are in action?