Superbowl halftime show, etc?

Socializing and general posts on wide-ranging topics. Remember, it's Poststructural!
User avatar
Loren
Posts: 8393
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Location: Loren has left the building.

Post by Loren »

spittin_in_the_wind wrote:Actually, I don't consider football to be a violent sport. Physical, yes, violent, no. Violence means intentionally trying to injure another person; I consider most boxing to be violent.
Actually, having some background in Boxing, I'd have to disagree. Boxing may seem violent to outsiders, but in fact, one doesn't go in with the idea of causing the opponent permanent damage, in fact those boxers who have been involved in situations where an opponent was seriously injured or killed, tend to be devastated. Boxing is a contest of skill and will, the idea being to stop your opponent before he/she can stop you, but believe it or not, it's not about violence per se. I'd argue that football really IS the more violent sport, regardless of the rules. Ask any college or pro running back what goes on under the "pile-up".....

Loren
User avatar
spittin_in_the_wind
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Massachusetts

Post by spittin_in_the_wind »

I guess I should qualify the remark about boxing to say, the kind you see in the Olympics seems ok to me. They generally have head protection, etc. and it's fairly refereed. It's the big, spectacle heavyweight stuff that seems just a blood sport to me--no protection and guys getting seriously pummeled before the official steps in to stop it.

Robin
User avatar
rebl_rn
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Southeastern Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by rebl_rn »

Having just watched the halftime show, I have to say, it was pretty durn good (and 1000% better than last year). Paul was in pretty good form. I watched it with a friend of mine who is a HUGE Paul fan so the best part of the show for me was watching her swooning over Paul.

Anyway, just want to say "Well Done" to Sir Paul.

Beth
Wash your hands. Cough and sneeze in your sleeve. Stay home if you are sick. Stay informed. http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu for more info.
User avatar
emmline
Posts: 11859
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:33 am
antispam: No
Location: Annapolis, MD
Contact:

Post by emmline »

Yes, I enjoyed him too, and sang along with "Hey Jude," as asked.
User avatar
aderyn_du
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Atlanta

Post by aderyn_du »

Hey emm, I did too! Sorry for those wrong notes I hit... I'd had a little too much merlot.
User avatar
rebl_rn
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Southeastern Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by rebl_rn »

We were singing along too - we tried to get my dad to sing, he said he didn't know the words (this was the "na na" part) :roll: - but even he eventually sang along!

Beth
Wash your hands. Cough and sneeze in your sleeve. Stay home if you are sick. Stay informed. http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu for more info.
User avatar
glauber
Posts: 4967
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: I'm from Brazil, living in the Chicago area (USA)
Contact:

Post by glauber »

I think it was pretty impressive. The Hoffner bass was classy, and the pyrotechnics on Live and Let Die were out of this world. How do they set up that stage, with all that equipment, in so little time? And Paul was definitely rocking.

Who was the lead guitar player? He almost stole the show.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
User avatar
emmline
Posts: 11859
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:33 am
antispam: No
Location: Annapolis, MD
Contact:

Post by emmline »

aderyn_du wrote:Hey emm, I did too! Sorry for those wrong notes I hit... I'd had a little too much merlot.
My sauvignon blanc made your notes sound fine.
susnfx
Posts: 4245
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Salt Lake City

Post by susnfx »

Loren wrote:
spittin_in_the_wind wrote:Actually, I don't consider football to be a violent sport. Physical, yes, violent, no. Violence means intentionally trying to injure another person; I consider most boxing to be violent.
Actually, having some background in Boxing, I'd have to disagree. Boxing may seem violent to outsiders, but in fact, one doesn't go in with the idea of causing the opponent permanent damage, in fact those boxers who have been involved in situations where an opponent was seriously injured or killed, tend to be devastated. Boxing is a contest of skill and will, the idea being to stop your opponent before he/she can stop you, but believe it or not, it's not about violence per se. I'd argue that football really IS the more violent sport, regardless of the rules. Ask any college or pro running back what goes on under the "pile-up".....

Loren
I don't know...any "sport" where the idea is to render your opponent unconscious is pretty violent to me. I had a very good friend who was a Golden Gloves boxer at the Naval Academy. He'd won some matches and was working his way up to some championship. We went to one of his bouts and it was terribly disturbing to me--and not just because he lost. It was obviously entertaining to a lot of people, but to watch someone I cared about being beaten and bloodied until he didn't know who or where he was (the match was finally called in some late round) turned me against boxing forever. I even had a hard time watching "Million Dollar Baby."

Susan
User avatar
Martin Milner
Posts: 4350
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: London UK

Post by Martin Milner »

Loren wrote:
spittin_in_the_wind wrote:Actually, I don't consider football to be a violent sport. Physical, yes, violent, no. Violence means intentionally trying to injure another person; I consider most boxing to be violent.
Actually, having some background in Boxing, I'd have to disagree. Boxing may seem violent to outsiders, but in fact, one doesn't go in with the idea of causing the opponent permanent damage, in fact those boxers who have been involved in situations where an opponent was seriously injured or killed, tend to be devastated. Boxing is a contest of skill and will, the idea being to stop your opponent before he/she can stop you, but believe it or not, it's not about violence per se. I'd argue that football really IS the more violent sport, regardless of the rules. Ask any college or pro running back what goes on under the "pile-up".....

Loren
I don't get it Loren. How do you stop your opponent, except by causing so much physical damage to his/her body that s/he can't fight back?

In fencing, for example, you score points by touching the opponent, but not by running them through. Is that how boxing is supposed to be scored?
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing
Post Reply