Page 11 of 11

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:09 pm
by Reliant121
League and Union are played differently due to different rules.

Rugby league has a 6 tackle rule. You get 5 tackles to advance from the moment your given side gains the ball. After the 5th tackle, the ball must be kicked away. Ideally, far enough that it will make the opposing team work to get up to the try zone. Rugby league is a fast game, and it's highly dependent on positioning.

Rugby Union has unlimited tackles. Scrums and rucks are also much more prevalent as since there are no tackle limits, speed is not so much of an issue. the game generally revolves a lot more around a brawl of a match through most of the center of play, slowly working your way up the field.

The main division is between north-south in the UK at least. Rugby league is very prevalent in the north of the UK, Rugby union much more so in the south.

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:12 pm
by Mikey
Sort of like the difference between a smash-mouth running (American) football team (Union) and a pass-oriented, "West-Coast offense" one (league.)

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:39 pm
by IanKennedy
Mikey wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Since that's never happened, I'd rather say that it bothers you when you think you are. And that you occasionally seem to jump to that conclusion.
Except for when it's happened. In any event, this type of situation is the very quintessence of perception being reality, isn't it?
You've said that before and then said that it hasn't happened here. What happens in your neck of the woods I can't comment on, I've never been there.

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:53 pm
by Mikey
I beg your pardon, I live in the armpit of the woods, not the neck.

Anyway... what? :? I've said that "perception being reality" hasn't happened here?

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:26 pm
by IanKennedy
Mikey wrote:I beg your pardon, I live in the armpit of the woods, not the neck.

Anyway... what? :? I've said that "perception being reality" hasn't happened here?
Sorry, I quoted your response to Graham's response to what you said. I don't see why you don't understand ;)

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:09 pm
by Mikey
I have a two-year-old and a six-year-old. If something less significant than a natural disaster or doctor's appointment occurred a week ago, it's completely gone from the attic of my mind.

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:42 pm
by IanKennedy
Mikey wrote:I have a two-year-old and a six-year-old. If something less significant than a natural disaster or doctor's appointment occurred a week ago, it's completely gone from the attic of my mind.
It just shows that some people just aren't prepared to put in the effort to make random madness work. :)

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:51 pm
by Mikey
If there's effort involved, wouldn't it be focused and conscious - rather than random - madness?

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:41 pm
by Captain Picard's Hair
Mikey wrote:If there's effort involved, wouldn't it be focused and conscious - rather than random - madness?
But then wouldn't you have to be, well, mad to put in the effort to simulate random madness? :mrgreen:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:18 pm
by Mikey
I suddenly get the feeling that I'm witnessing a conversation between Yossarian and Major Major Major Major.

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:34 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Random anything is a hard thing for a human mind to do. Try printing out a 5x5 grid and colour in eight random squares. It's real hard to do it without accidentally creating a pattern or favouring some area over another.