On 11/13/2013 07:13 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/13/2013 6:45 PM, Michael wrote:
Knowing what I know now, I would strongly discourage my kid from playing.

How totally asinine and illogical, to even attempt to equate the contact in Pop Warner, with the contact in the NFL.

Coddle the little yuppie spawn and raise another generation of incapable, progressive thinking girlymen.

How about better helmet designs, for starters?

This country is ****ing toast ...


I often agree with your views, but not in this case. Concussion damage
is cumulative. So is a lot of joint damage. What you're not understanding
is that - even at these fairly low levels of play - there is intense
competitiveness, the kids are getting bigger and faster, and the long term
harm they're enduring is very real. The kids playing High School football
today would have been the equal (in size and speed) of a college player
a few decades ago, and possibly a pro from a few decades before that.
It is flatly irresponsible - bordering on child abuse - to expose younger
children to this kind of cumulative damage. If it makes you feel better,
I feel the same way about letting said yuppie spawn play soccer and
field the ball with their foreheads. Ditto Rugby.

That said, the biggest harm for the upper levels of play - High School,
College, and Pro - is the *presence* of plastic helmets. A good many
concussions are a consequence of these players being coached to use
their helmets as weapons. I heard a guy on the radio who had played
in the days of the leather headgear who said concussions were fairly
rare in his day because that kind of head-as-a-weapon playing simply
wasn't possible with leather "helmets".

Then there's the thug factor of the modern pro game that has diminished
the sport to the point of unwatchability. I'd don't think I've seen
5 games in 10 years and I don't miss it. There are far better things
to do than watching gangbangers legally beat each other into an
early grave ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 14 Nov 2013 18:49:18 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:


My new favorite line is that when we get all this political
correctness ironed out and every one has his trophy we will need to
fear an invasion from France, a country that does not invade. They
will do it just to see if they can, and they will be successful.


I'll get MY trophy then, for hiding in a closet!

Do I get a big one for being the biggest coward?

I think you get the Order of DeGaulle medal.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:40:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 11/15/2013 12:05 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 11/15/2013 9:20 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 11/14/2013 1:23 PM, scritch wrote:
With all the tree-huggers, the animal rights activists, the global
warming proponents, the "it's for the children" hand-wringers and the
government knows best loons doing everything they can to protect us
(read, idiots) from ourselves they have forgotten one major point. The
more they protect us from ourselves the more diluted the gene pool
becomes. The end result will be a new and improved breed of idiots
that will need even more protection.

Leon is totally right unless this wussification is stopped.


Regardless of how "wussified" you think Americans are becoming, the rest
of the industrialized world generally reports as being happier in
general, and they live longer and in better health than we do.




And that is because the Americans have been first in line in defending
the world. What will the rest of the world do when the Americans don't
have the balls any more to look out for the under dog?

Defending the world against what? Aliens? Typhoons?



Obviously your head is still in the sand.


No, I just don't buy into the "American Exceptionalism" that you seem
to believe makes America superior to the rest of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

There's no doubt that the US had a key role in winning WWI and WWII.

Since then, the US record has been spotty, to say the least. Particularly
in the 21st century.

But, you are an avowed republican, so you'll ignore everything counter
to the 21st century republican ethos as some "liberal nonsense".

Talk about head in the sand.


Snore

+1

Scott is a charter member of the blame-America-first crowd.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:48:31 -0500, wrote:
And that is because the Americans have been first in line in defending
the world. What will the rest of the world do when the Americans don't
have the balls any more to look out for the under dog?

Whichever way that people think about the supposed arrogance of the
US, as a Canadian, I'm glad we share the longest undefended border in
the world. Well, it was that way until Sept. 11, 2001, when some walls
went up. But, we're still good neighbours and I know that the US would
be right there to help us in time of great strife.

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:48:31 -0500, wrote:
And that is because the Americans have been first in line in defending
the world. What will the rest of the world do when the Americans don't
have the balls any more to look out for the under dog?

Whichever way that people think about the supposed arrogance of the
US, as a Canadian, I'm glad we share the longest undefended border in
the world. Well, it was that way until Sept. 11, 2001, when some walls
went up. But, we're still good neighbours and I know that the US would
be right there to help us in time of great strife.

+3

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:03:31 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:48:31 -0500, wrote:
And that is because the Americans have been first in line in defending
the world. What will the rest of the world do when the Americans don't
have the balls any more to look out for the under dog?

Whichever way that people think about the supposed arrogance of the
US, as a Canadian, I'm glad we share the longest undefended border in
the world. Well, it was that way until Sept. 11, 2001, when some walls
went up. But, we're still good neighbours and I know that the US would
be right there to help us in time of great strife.

You betcha. Paranoia has caused all sorts of silliness. TSA, anyone?

On 11/15/2013 5:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I often agree with your views, but not in this case.

Subject = "Pop Warner", nothing else:

http://www.popwarner.com/football/footballsafety.htm

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/16/2013 04:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/15/2013 5:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I often agree with your views, but not in this case.

Subject = "Pop Warner", nothing else:

http://www.popwarner.com/football/footballsafety.htm



Once again, the problem is not the injury rate. It's the fact that
head and joint trauma are *cumulative* and ought to be avoided, particularly
in young, growing children.

--


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 11/16/2013 5:25 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 11/16/2013 04:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/15/2013 5:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I often agree with your views, but not in this case.

Subject = "Pop Warner", nothing else:

http://www.popwarner.com/football/footballsafety.htm


Once again, the problem is not the injury rate.

Once again, I did not state that it was.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 11/16/2013 04:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/15/2013 5:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I often agree with your views, but not in this case.

Subject = "Pop Warner", nothing else:

http://www.popwarner.com/football/footballsafety.htm



Once again, the problem is not the injury rate. It's the fact that
head and joint trauma are *cumulative* and ought to be avoided,
particularly in young, growing children.

Yes - the problem is the injury rate. If there is no injury rate in a given
level of a sport, the then effects at other levels of that sport -
cumulative or not, are irrelevant. That's where a little common sense comes
into play.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:25:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Yes - the problem is the injury rate. If there is no injury rate in a given
level of a sport, the then effects at other levels of that sport -
cumulative or not, are irrelevant. That's where a little common sense comes
into play.

No, you're not understanding what the information is saying. The
injury rate you're referring to only records what can immediately be
seen. The head trauma being discussed does not show up for some time.
It is an injury, just that it can't be seen or recognized as such in
its early stages.

The biggest problem with this type of head trauma is that it can and
often does have a catastrophic effect later in life ~ much more so
than some effect that might be noticed as an injury and qualify for
your early injury rate.

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:25:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Yes - the problem is the injury rate. If there is no injury rate in
a given level of a sport, the then effects at other levels of that
sport - cumulative or not, are irrelevant. That's where a little
common sense comes into play.

No, you're not understanding what the information is saying. The
injury rate you're referring to only records what can immediately be
seen. The head trauma being discussed does not show up for some time.
It is an injury, just that it can't be seen or recognized as such in
its early stages.

I went back and looked at the article again. It really does not say that in
that manner. Head traumas like concussions do have immediately visible
indicators, however you are correct in that multiple occurrances of these
traumas can have a cumulative effect that appears later in life. As stated
in the article though, there is less science and more emotional reaction
going on right now. Not to minimize concussions, but they are visible and
there is a prescribed course of action should one occur. A simple
concussion does not just lead to later issues as implied.


The biggest problem with this type of head trauma is that it can and
often does have a catastrophic effect later in life ~ much more so
than some effect that might be noticed as an injury and qualify for
your early injury rate.

That's the point of the article - there is no evidence that it often does.
Take a second look at the article.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:30:57 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
That's the point of the article - there is no evidence that it often does.
Take a second look at the article.

That's just one article. There's many articles and examples to the
contrary. Consider Muhammid Ali. He's been diagnosed with Parkinson's
syndrome, a condition which is often associated with boxers.

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:30:57 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
That's the point of the article - there is no evidence that it often
does. Take a second look at the article.

That's just one article. There's many articles and examples to the
contrary. Consider Muhammid Ali. He's been diagnosed with Parkinson's
syndrome, a condition which is often associated with boxers.

I do not disagree with that but the Mayo Clinic does not suggest the degree
of alarm that was raised by the one article. Certainly - guys like Ali
represent the seriousness of prolonged injury, but that is not the point
that has been challenged.

--

-Mike-