Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking. Furthermore, a theory is often based on general principles that are independent of the thing being explained. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek , but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis . A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. Someone who develops theories is called a theorist. One modern group of meanings emphasizes the interpretative, abstracting, and generalizing nature of theory. For example in the arts and philosophy , the term "theoretical" may be used to describe ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable. Theory abstracts. It draws away from the particular and empirical. By extension of the philosophical meaning, " theoria " is a word still used in theological contexts to mean viewing through contemplation — speculating about meanings that transcend measurement. However, by contrast to theoria, theory is based on the act of viewing analytically and generalizing contextually. It is thus based upon a process of abstraction. That is, theory involves stepping back, or abstracting, from that which one is viewing. [ 1 ] A theory can be " normative (or prescriptive), [ 2 ] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". [ 3 ] A theory can be a body of knowledge , which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge. [ 4 ] As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis , πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked. [ 5 ] In modern science , the term "theory" refers to scientific theories , a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature , made in a way consistent with scientific method , and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science . Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (" verify ") or empirically contradict (" falsify ") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, [ 6 ] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'). [ 7 ] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses , which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws , which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. [ 8 ] The English word theory was derived from a technical term in philosophy in Ancient Greek . As an everyday word, theoria , θεωρία , meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", but in more technical contexts it came to refer to contemplative or speculative understandings of natural things , such as those of natural philosophers , as opposed to more practical ways of knowing things, like that of skilled orators or artisans. [ 9 ] The word has been in use in English since at least the late 16th century. [ 10 ] Modern uses of the word "theory" are derived from the original definition, but have taken on new shades of meaning, still based on the idea that a theory is a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things. Although it has more mundane meanings in Greek, the word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the recorded history of the Greek language . In the book From Religion to Philosophy , Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'. [ 11 ] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical knowledge, because he considered this intellectual pursuit the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice. [ 12 ] In Aristotle's terminology, as has already been mentioned above, theory is contrasted with praxis or practice, which remains the case today. For Aristotle, both practice and theory involve thinking, but the aims are different. Theoretical contemplation considers things which humans do not move or change, such as nature , so it has no human aim apart from itself and the knowledge it helps create. On the other hand, praxis involves thinking, but always with an aim to desired actions, whereby humans cause change or movement themselves for their own ends. Any human movement which involves no conscious choice and thinking could not be an example of praxis or doing. [ 13 ] Theories are analytical tools for understanding , explaining , and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences . A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language , but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic . Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic . Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is under the theory. [ 14 ] Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they make the same predictions. A pair of such theories is called indistinguishable, and the choice between them reduces to convenience or philosophical preference. The form of theories is studied formally in mathematical logic, especially in model theory . When theories are studied in mathematics, they are usually expressed in some formal language and their statements are closed under application of certain procedures called rules of inference . A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference. A theorem is a statement that can be derived from those axioms by application of these rules of inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems provide solutions to real-world problems. Obvious examples include arithmetic (abstracting concepts of number), geometry (concepts of space), and probability (concepts of randomness and likelihood). Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent, recursively enumerable theory (that is, one whose theorems form a recursively enumerable set) in which the concept of natural numbers can be expressed, can include all true statements about them. As a result, some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely, as mathematical theories. (Here, formalizing accurately and completely means that all true propositions—and only true propositions—are derivable within the mathematical system.) This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of scientific knowledge. A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory ) if, given the available evidence cited to support the theory, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with it that is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions. If there is a new theory which is better at explaining and predicting phenomena than an older theory (i.e. it has more explanatory power ), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly. This is called an intertheoretic reduction because the terms of the old theory can be reduced to the terms of the new one. For instance, our historical understanding about "sound", "light" and "heat" have today been reduced to "wave compressions and rarefactions", "electromagnetic waves", and "molecular kinetic energy", respectively. These terms which are identified with each other are called intertheoretic identities. When an old theory and a new one are parallel in this way, we can conclude that we are describing the same reality, only more completely. In cases where a new theory uses new terms which do not reduce to terms of an older one, but rather replace them entirely because they are actually a misrepresentation it is called an intertheoretic elimination. For instance, the obsolete scientific theory that put forward an understanding of heat transfer in terms of the movement of caloric fluid was eliminated when a theory of heat as energy replaced it. Also, the theory that phlogiston is a substance released from burning and rusting material was eliminated with the new understanding of the reactivity of oxygen. Theories are distinct from theorems . Theorems are derived deductively from objections according to a formal system of rules, sometimes as an end in itself and sometimes as a first step in testing or applying a theory in a concrete situation; theorems are said to be true in the sense that the conclusions of a theorem are logical consequences of the objections. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are ' rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true and expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are incorrect, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often theories are corrected to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. An example of the former is the restriction of Classical mechanics to phenomena involving macroscopic lengthscales and particle speeds much lower than the speed of light. "Sometimes a hypothesis never reaches the point of being considered a theory because the answer is not found to derive its assertions analytically or not applied empirically." [ citation needed ] Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories . At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation . Fields of study are sometimes named "theory" because their basis is some initial set of objections describing the field's approach to a subject matter. These assumptions are the elementary theorems of the particular theory, and can be thought of as the axioms of that field. Some commonly known examples include set theory and number theory ; however literary theory , critical theory , and music theory are also of the same form. One form of philosophical theory is a metatheory or meta-theory . A metatheory is a theory whose subject matter is some other theory. In other words it is a theory about a theory. Statements made in the metatheory about the theory are called metatheorems . In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment ." [ 15 ] [ 16 ] Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources. (See characteristics of scientific theories .) The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease . The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. [ 17 ] A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. [ 16 ] Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. In the semantic view of theories , which has largely replaced the received view, [ 18 ] [ 19 ] theories are viewed as scientific models . A model is a logical framework intended to represent reality (a "model of reality"), similar to the way that a map is a graphical model that represents the territory of a city or country. In this approach, theories are a specific category of models which fulfill the necessary criteria. (See Theories as models for further discussion.) In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries, like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. One good example is classical electromagnetism , which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations . The specific mathematical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting the level of consistent and reproducible evidence that supports them. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested. Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory. ^ The word "theory" was used in Greek philosophy , for example, that of Plato . It is a statement of how and why particular facts are related. It is related to words for θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show". See for example dictionary entries at Perseus website . ^ The LSJ cites two passages of Aristotle as examples, both from the Metaphysics and involving the definition of natural science : 11.1064a17 , "it is clear that natural science (φυσικὴν ἐπιστήμην) must be neither practical (πρακτικὴν) nor productive (ποιητικὴν), but speculative (θεωρητικὴν)" and 6.1025b25 , "Thus if every intellectual activity [διάνοια] is either practical or productive or speculative (θεωρητική), physics (φυσικὴ) will be a speculative [θεωρητική] science". So Aristotle actually made a three way distinction between practical, theoretical and productive or technical - or between doing, contemplating or making. All three types involve thinking, but are distinguished by what causes the objects of thought to move or change.


The defendants wrestled with the owner for possession of a handbag. They ran off without the bag, but they had caused her lose possession this was an appropriation, therefore a theft had occurred Actus reus Immediately before or at the Time of Stealing. Theft is a continuing offence. But, courts are flexible. To interpret this literally would have a limiting effect on the scope of the section. Undoubtedly bank robbers who threaten people with force to make good their 'get a way' use force 'afterwards', but are still robbers -- the theft is continuing. Force was used to stop a woman raising the alarm while her jewellery box was being stolen. A substantial part of the force took place when the box was in the thieves' possession. Therefore, violence may come after the act of theft. Stopped leaving an off-licence by shopkeeper, assaulted him to escape. Hale applied, Gomez not relevant. Guilty And in order to do so. Theft from a disabled victim after a fight would not be robbery Actus reus Uses force on any person or Puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being Then and there subjected to force. There must be force (not violence, nor necessarily an assault) More is needed than to take the property from a passive victim as in snatching a handbag from an unsuspecting victim. More is needing than the force used to pick a pocket. But amount of force can be quiet slight, e.g. a nudge causing V to lose balance. The force must be against a person so this could not include a dog. Applying force to the property being taken (the shopping bag in the case of Clouden) is applying force to the person who is resisting. Resisting or unresisting victim The distinction between a victim who resisted having his property taken (for example snatching a handbag) used to be important, but it is not now, it is up to the jury to decide if the 'snatching' amounts to force. Snatching of property, such as a handbag from an unresisting owner would constitute force (Clouden), despite the CLRC expressed belief to the contrary. Blind victim? Need not be aware of force, requirement includes seeking to put V in fear


I have 3 sets of adhesive Modskinz black CARBON wraps for a PROVARI V2 for sale. I also have 1 set in WHITE. I had ordered them from USA and ended up with a new washing machine and not his-and-hers provaris as intended. After hard deliberation, clean underpants were more important (just..) Just received and the precision and finish is AWESOME! The sets will cover your device as well as an extension cap and base as well as the standard base.


Relax If you need help relaxing, contract and release each set of muscles in your body sequentially, starting from your toes and working your way up to your face and scalp. Step 5 Hold pose Stay in this pose for as long as you like, letting your whole system relax deeply. Ideally, you will feel like you are falling asleep while remaining fully conscious. Step 6 Release pose To release the pose, start by gently wiggling your fingers and toes to reawaken your body. Allow yourself ample time to regain full awareness and movement -- after all, coming back from the dead is no small feat. Fact In Hinduism, coming back to life is no big deal -- reincarnation is a central tenet of the religion.


University students hit back in St Paul's parking egg wars STUDENTS have hit back at Cheltenham residents who have been 'targeting them' for parking in their road. Tyres have been slashed and eggs have been thrown at cars in Manser Street, which have been left by young people studying at the nearby University of Gloucestershire campus. Gloucestershire Constabulary Kate Wright, who is working towards a PGCE, returned to her Mitsubishi Colt last Tuesday to find it had been vandalised. She claims members of the neighbourhood are creating a culture of intimidation to scare off anybody using their streets to park. And the 26-year-old insisted that she had not broken any laws by using the spot to leave her vehicle. "I was very angry and couldn't believe someone would do something like this," said Kate, who lives in Woodmancote and chose to stay in the county to study at University of Gloucestershire. "When I parked there last Monday, there was a note left on my car which was impossible to read and I wondered what it said. I came back the next day to find eggs smashed all over the car and my tyres slashed. "I have lived in Cheltenham all my life and so I know the area well. "It just seems completely stupid when they have the least amount of cars in that street. "I thought at the time it was surprising no cars were parked along there but obviously they have scared everyone off. "When I picked up the car the day before, there were people waiting around and it felt very intimidating. "Fortunately I was with a friend and we just got out of there as quickly as we could but they have to remember that this is my community too. "How dare they think they have a right to take the law into their own hands?" Kate had to spend 108 to replace her tyres. She has now brought a parking permit for the university car park - setting her back a further 45. "It has cost me a lot of money which I cannot claim back on the insurance," she said. "It doesn't seem like much but, as a student, I'm having to pay my tuition fees as well and it all adds up. "I am working hard every day, from 9am to 5pm, and this is the last thing I want to deal with." Residents claimed St Paul's had been the scene of several angry clashes between students and homeowners last week. Detectives said they were aware of the tensions in the neighbourhood and were still hunting for the culprits behind the attacks. They are urging anyone with information to contact them on 101 quoting incident 166 of September 18. 18 Comments "SInce they introduced resident parking permits in St Lukes, along with meters for non-residents, and allowing permit holders to park in all and any spaces, I've always found a place to park my van. Before the permits were introduced it was a struggle. I prefer to pay the 70 ish per year for a permit and pretty much guarantee a space near my house than the old system... Even in metered spaces, I can park my van and they're more often empty than not during the day and mostly only used by permit holders in the evening... can't imagine Students wanting a yearly permit at around 70 instead of campus one at 45...?" "I would not encourage Andrew Landsley or anyone else to pin their hopes on a parking review. This happened in the Suffolks area of Cheltenham, and has made parking and traffic there much more difficult - this took place despite the majority not being in favour of the proposals. Lessons learnt need to include a full consultation, proper neighbourhood participation, and the politicians to listen!" "I'd just like to add that in this thread @Matt1006, @eyeopener, @chrisgump2011, @whiteangeluk and @localyoungman have made some of the most articulate and informed arguments I've ever seen on the TiG board! I find it genuinely encouraging for our area that people care so much, are constructive and willing to volunteer their opinions on a public forum. I would also like to offer you a personal guarantee that I will bring your comments directly to the attention of Stephen Marston (vice-chancellor of UoG) when I meet with him tomorrow afternoon to discuss the University's responsibility within our community. I will also be presenting the common sense solutions that have come to me via some of you on this board, personal email or at recent residents meetings. Speaking as a resident, the car parking review cannot come quick enough to our area - along with the St Paul's-wide waste management review. Hopefully we can keep working together to make sure these issues remain at the forefront of trying to improve our community. "It has always been a problem in St Paul's, when I come home during term time I can never find a space for my car and end up having to park streets away from my house; when these students have left I can park right outside my front door! As it has been said already, there are too many student houses each holding 3 or 4 of them and most of them having a car! We, the real residents of St Paul's who are here for more than a few months of the year need to have our own private/reserved parking spaces by our homes. With regards to this actual incident, Manser Street has always been a notorious area and I would never park my car down there. The university does need to start providing parking for the students when they drive here for their lectures, however the ones that 'live' here, you need to be fair and realise you cannot have more than two cars per house, there simply isn't enough room!" "Of course, the person or people responsible for this damage have not yet been identified, so apart from TIG's conjecture, the fact that the car was damaged in Manser Street and the well-publicised enmity between St Paul's residents and students, there is nothing to suggest that this damage was caused by local residents. My own vehicle has been similarly targeted while parked in a public pay-and-display car park! The police don't respond, so I don't bother reporting it any more (my car is now kept in a locked garage most of the time). It's just one of the risks of car ownership. This incident just happened to happen in Manser Street and it just happened to be a student's car. In other circumstances, this kind of damage probably wouldn't have been given such prominent press." Again, very pleased that the issues we face as residents are making the news - open discussion and an honest appreciation of the challenges we face here will be the best way for us to move forward as a community. No one is under the illusion that there isn't still a lot of work to be done and would like to reassure residents that there are many residents, organisations and officers working extremely hard on behalf of St Paul's. I'd not commented on the remarks made on the previous TiG article as I felt that it would be unfair to school those who are entirely unable to differentiate between my words and a journalist generate headline. To highlight this ignorance, I'll just directly quote serial-offerender @takeway22 for the entirety of their last post: "Councillor Andrew Lansley has been strangely quiet when TiG posted the last two articles. Afterall, in Mr Lansley's words, "COOL' St Paul's is fast becoming the best place in Cheltenham". Really?" Well done for quoting a headline, certainly not my words and this was underlined in my first post about the story on that particular thread: *** "Just to clarify some misleading quotes the mar the tone of this piece: 1. I did not claim it's the "best place in Cheltenham" 2. I did not claim the ward is "the place to be" *** Just to give you a clue, when I say stuff to a paper "they normally put it in quotation marks." If they don't, then it is simple journalistic spin - you would do well to note this in order to stop you continually repeating this error. Something tells me that your motivation on this thread would be to make glib, populist remarks rather than actually helping your fellow human beings like some of us have spent their lives doing. If you can't tell the difference between someone highlighting the positive things about an area and crime then it is only you who looks stupid for their remarks. I fully stand by what I said in the article (and my blog) about the positives of our area - here is that link AGAIN so you can see what I actually said: "The problem is there are too many homes rented out in St Pauls so a 3 bedroom home has been turned into a 5/6 bedroom house, I think in Courtney street houses have been extended to 8/9 bedrooms. Than we wonder why is there no spaces for cars. Most whom rent the rooms have cars. Gone are the days when they have bikes. When St Pauls was first built it was for local workers in the area, even to 30 years ago it was mostly family homes, when the collage became a University that's when people saw their opportunity to buy homes for the purpose of letting them out, not to families as there was more to be made from students as rent out nearly every room. Back in the 1800s there was never the thought that so many could live in the area. Otherwise I am sure they would have made the roads more wider. Yet the council seem to turn a blind eye to the problem. The university could help if they choose to open up car parks allow students to use both gates when they have been drinking at the student club at Francis close. It's not just the parking that upsets people the noise and shouting, is there any need for it ? We have it on their way out approx 11pm than again on their way back at 3 to 4 am I don't condone any criminal damage to anyone or anything, but I do think that students and not all of them, as some are quite respectful of the area, but a few should learn to respect others in neighbourhood before they want others to respect them." "@Chrisgump2011 thank you. The university provides a free bus linking campuses in Cheltenham and Gloucester and various other points in the town. Students other than those who live locally, but outside the town, or part time students with jobs simply do not need cars. On the one hand we have the council taking measures to pedestrianise, create shared spaces, rejuvanate town centre car parks and reroute our roads to encourage fewer cars, more cycling and walking only to see this green and healthy trend undone by a university unwilling to tackle the obvious."


Pages Tuesday, October 4, 2011 Blog overload - I think I lost the plot there for a moment I think I might've lost the plot there just recently. You see, Digital Parents , an online blogging community here in Australia, are hosting their second blogging conference in March 2012. There's been talk of sponsorship to pay for you to get there, blogging about it, guest speakers, a trade show etc etc. I actually thought hey, I could do this . I found myself writing project plans and check lists on how I was going to achieve all of this. I actually got excited about the idea of going to an interstate conference, something that I did from time to time with my work, before kids. I've seen a few blog posts today about the overuse of social media, spending less time doing but more time spent on the computer and the amount of time you spend blogging compared to commenting. I enjoy reading and commenting on blogs and would prefer to do that. The light bulb went flashing madly today and I said "NO"! No more. This is just craziness. If I wanted to do all of this, I'd be doing it as a full time job and getting paid for it. I'm a Mother first and foremost, not a blogger. I'm a cook, a wife, a friend, a daughter, a sister, a carer of two dogs and a person who loves life and wants to get healthy. I don't have time to be doing this. I've got two children and a husband who need my time and attention, more than a digital world of maybes and what ifs. I don't have time for media kits and sponsorship. I love cooking, craft, reading, photography, spending time with and looking after my children, husband and two dogs and keeping house. This is what I'll do. We're a one income family and if I do happen to get enough money saved up for a ticket (nearly $200), airfares (approx $500), accommodation (nearly $500) and spending money, then I'll go. If not, then I'm sure I'll find out what happened through Twitter, about 100 different Australian bloggers and guest speakers, video links and photos. Its a lot of money to outlay isn't it? After the last conference,I read a lot of posts saying that you had to do this, this and this and be that, that, that to be blogging correctly and to your full potential. ersonally I like my blogs the way I make them because really it is my own form of self publishing and I want it to be me, not the same as what everyone else is doing IYKWIM? A lot of my favourite blogs either sold out or just lost that appeal for me and it was disappointing. If you do find a way to get there, I am sure you will have fun though... Well done you - sometimes we think being SAHM's mean our days of career and ambition are over. But blogging can be another thinly veiled version of the rat race. We blog because we love it, and I hope it stays that way. I tell myself that as soon as I get sponsors etc etc etc, the pressure increases so much. I need to post all the time, and have great content all the time. I like to take a break when I want. I own the blog, it doesn't own me, and it's such a joy :) Good on you Anne! Love your blog - and your perspective Anne! You have inspired me to do some more cooking. I try to avoid the oven when I cook so I made a lemon slice on the weekend (from my mum's old Nursing Mothers Association cookbook)... it was great! And I replaced the Marie biscuits with Weetbix for a bit less sugar and I think they are just as good :-D I often wonder how people find the money to attend these conferences. I know for myself, there is absolutely no room in my budget for any expense of this size! Glad you're comfortable with your decision not to get caught up with online "stuff" and concentrate on "real life" :) Well said Anne! I personally won't be going because of the expense....I have a family of six to feed! Also because I'm happy posting my little stories about random and obscure things. Maybe if my blog was bigger? Who knows? It takes such a lot of time posting and then commenting on a few blogs a day...I really don't have time to do any more and I commend you for the amount of commenting you do! I have to remind myself of that all the time. I am not trying to make money right now. Maybe we feel guilt to just do it all, even though doing it all is not possible. It would be fun, but I bet there are more fun ways to spend that money. So well said Anne. I am really trying to balance blogging with my other life loves and keep it in its rightful place...a hobby. Would love to see you in Melbourne some time, be it at a blog conference or some other excuse to come down this way. x Lee What an absolutely brilliant post! Here is the UK it is much the same, and over the last couple of years I've seen the 'mummy blogging world' change completely from how it was when I first started blogging back in 2008. People are obsessed by visitor numbers, SEO, blogging conferences, getting hold of free stuff to 'review', and their position on various blog popularity charts. I can't bear it. The best blogs (and the ones that I prefer to visit regularly and comment on) are ALWAYS the ones who concentrate on actually writing interesting content, rather than all the above, IMHO. Yes! Thank you! I think your post has just pulled me back in to line as well! I'm noticing that the cyber world is taking up more and more of my time lately, when I have a spare moment, I go online. Not that I'm posting much, but I'm certainly writing stuff to post, and reading a lot of other blogs. I'd love to see my blog grow and I do love blogging, but sometimes when it's getting too big for its boots, it's a good idea to take a step back and ask yourself, "why am I doing this?" For some it may be a career step, and that's cool. For me, it's a hobby and it needs to be more for ME than anyone.else, otherwise why am I doing it?! As others have said above, it's all about balance! Hope you find yours Anne!


Which hard-fought victory would he rather obliterate first -- Medicare or women's rights? Will he broaden the ticket's appeal from conservatives to nut job conservatives? With his hangdog look and puppy dog eyes, is he afraid Romney will put him on top of his car? These are the kinds of questions -- and then some -- we will tackle every day. Now the workmen are installing the latest in celebrity scandal monitors. As I sit here I can see the DUI section. Hmm... Jenna Jameson was caught in L.A., her car wrapped around a pole. It was her first DUI. Not her first pole... Where were we? Oh yes, Say Anything. We'll take on everything from politics to pop culture, celebrities to newsmakers, the ridiculous to the sublimely ridiculous. There's so much to talk about and I'm excited to discuss all of it with you on Current TV. The ancient Mayans referred to the period we're in now as "the media cycle." I call it "the new abnormal" -- the era of Chick-Fil-A, Jan Brewer and Honey Boo Boo Child. A time when we're less worried about Big Brother watching us than we are about watching Big Brother. A time that I can't wait to talk about with my guests -- and with you. On this website , Facebook , Twitter and some other new platform I'll have to spend all my spare time figuring out. Well, this Command Module is almost finished. It's very similar to the one used by that NASA engineer -- the one with the faux hawk . We spent $50 billion going to Mars and the only alien life they found was in their own control room, wearing a hairstyle that was hip in 1983. The workmen are taking a break. They've left a gigantic box here. It either has talking points for my new show or ten years of Mitt Romney's tax returns. Hmm... It's pretty light.


Focus must shift to prevention strategies Date: November 17 2012 The Herald editorial is right to argue that the royal commission could seek "reform and healing rather than just punishment by process" (''Not only truth but reconciliation must be the remit'', November 14). Individuals and organisations that have been complicit in child sexual abuse have not done so in a vacuum. It is through organisational cultures of secrecy, denial and ignorance that child sex offenders gain access to our children. Child abuse is not a problem limited to the past. The royal commission must go beyond the history of complaints: it must examine how the lack of effective, compulsory standards and safeguards has directly led to the sexual abuse of children. We need to shift the paradigm away from a focus on child protection, to one that emphasises child abuse prevention. It is a shift that requires education, training, and community awareness. Children and adults need to be empowered to speak up against child abuse. There is a critical need for national child protection standards: attitudes may change but unless there are mandatory child protection standards, people will not report it and the preconditions for child sexual abuse will remain. Bernadette McMenamin CEO, Child Wise Church should defer to the law I tend to agree with Waleed Aly that the issue of the confessional seal is symbolic and that few cases of child abuse would come to light only through Confession (''It's essential we think outside the confessional box'', November 16). And yet the symbolism is absolutely crucial. In his shrill and spontaneous defence of the confessional seal, Cardinal Pell puts the Catholic Church above the law. He needs urgent and forceful reminding of what century we're living in. Stephen Wilson Five Dock Waleed Aly's article is insightful, but I beg to disagree with his summation. While a secular society's entry into the rules of the confessional may alter the behaviour of the perpetrator of child abuse, by their avoidance of the confessional, that may be a good thing for such a heinous crime. The act of removing or absolving guilt from those that enact such crimes, outside of the law of the land, is simply not appropriate. Better that they are left with the anguish, than relieved of the pain and able to justify a repeat of the process. Ted Keating Tallai (Qld) It appears that the Catholic Church not only has priests and brothers convicted of paedophilia but spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on barristers to defend those same priests time and time again on charges of serious sexual assault against children (''Church pays legal costs of paedophile priests - repeatedly'', November 16). May I suggest that a more productive and positive way to use what is obviously an unlimited cache of funds, would be for the Catholic Church to spend less money on defending those who sexually abuse children and instead invest its millions into supporting the education of its children? Perhaps the federal and state governments could consider withdrawing public funding to Catholic schools as a way of encouraging such positive Christian behaviour? De Brierley Newton Glebe I agree with John Poleson (Letters, November 13). Religious sadists in schools should also be accountable. I remember vividly when I was in year two, aged seven, at a Catholic girls' school being punched and pushed to the ground by a nun and sent outside with my nose bleeding for the rest of the day. This, just for a harmless prank by a friend and me in class. There was never any apology nor did my parents do anything about it; not even speak to the nun. Even though I changed schools, to another Catholic school, beatings still persisted until I entered high school. My mother suffered cruel and sadistic treatment at the hands of nuns in a Catholic orphanage, and I still wonder how she kept her faith and put her children through the Catholic system. She was fanatical about her faith until she died aged 93. Needless to say, the rest of the family discarded the faith after leaving home. It still upsets me to think about it. Denise Oliver Alfords Point Wendy Crew (Letters, November 16) raises a good point: the psychological abuse that religious groups inflict upon children is also worth our consideration. A vital evolutionary trait in children is that they trust and believe the adults around them. Filling their heads with claims about things you can't possibly know to be true is an abuse of this trust. It can take years of anguish to sort fact from fiction and many are never able to do so. Their problem though, becomes everyone's when they encounter others who've been indoctrinated with conflicting, incompatible ''truth'' claims. Larry Tofler Tea Gardens Alfred Hitchcock, devout Catholic and master of the suspense film genre, witnessed, in his words ''the most frightening sight of my life'', while driving through a Swiss town - a priest in conversation with a little boy, his hand on the boy's shoulder. ''Run little boy,'' yelled Hitchcock. ''Run for your life!'' Ian Waters Surry Hills Stand up to the US and Israel and support the Palestinians I am deeply worried about the situation escalating in the Middle East, and extremely concerned about Australia's lack of support for the Palestinian people and Australia's automatic political alliance with Israel and the US. I would like our government to stand up for the Palestinian people, to condemn Israel's illegal wars, and Israel's continual illegal occupation and annexation of Palestinian land, and Israel's illegal economic blockade of Gaza. It is clearly Israel who is the war monger. And it is shameful that Australia does not speak out against Israeli (and therefore, indirectly, US) state terror. If Australia is truly a secular and independent state, it would examine Israel's policies for what they are and condemn them as racist, akin to apartheid and fascism. Being of Jewish descent myself, I had hoped that a people who have suffered as much as the Jews would not become perpetrators of the same wrongs done to them in the past. But it is not the Jews who are perpetrators here: it is Israel. It is very important to make this distinction. I am against Israel's policies against the Palestinian people. I am not against Jewish people. It is an anachronism to have a Jewish state, just like it would be an anachronism if Australia declared itself to be a Christian state. Unfortunately not everyone has arrived in the 21st century. Some people seem to still live in Old Testament times. Israel is deeply in need of a strong international community that will make it stop carrying on like a madman. I wish our government would put pressure on the US to stop military support for Israel. And would condemn Israel's actions, and would put pressure on Israel to start obeying UN resolutions. Jepke Goudsmit Coogee I find it interesting and puzzling that the reporting of the Israeli/Gaza conflict seems to take on importance and make news only when the Israelis retaliate to rocket attacks by Hamas. The fact that Hamas continually fires rockets into southern Israel seems to be largely overlooked by the media, possibly because it is a regular event, possibly because the media have an agenda. It must be recognised that Australia regards Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as do most Western nations, and that any similar attack on Australia or other nations would elicit a similar response to that taken by Israel. Turkey's response to incursions by Syria in recent days springs to mind. Michael Hayes Mount Riverview Israel has responded to Gaza's response to its illegal blockade and collective punishment equating to ongoing war crimes against Palestinians. Netanyahu also has an election in two months. Poor Gaza. Stephen Heydt Toowong (Qld) Tit-for-tat rocket fire will not bring lasting peace to the Gaza Strip or Tel Aviv streets but true dialogue could if there was a will. Surely a worthwhile alternative to endless conflict. Eddie Raggett Mosman What hope is there for peace for the Palestinians in Gaza with Hamas in charge? Hamas is ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Its charter starts with: ''Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it''. It persists in shooting rockets at civilian targets in Israel provoking a response and uses its own citizens as shields against that response by embedding its launch sites in civilian areas - a double ''crime against humanity''. Malcolm Bersten Lane Cove Dumbing down TAFE costs dearly David Williamson's condemnation of cuts to arts education rightly points to a funding squeeze which will eventually destroy the public training system ('' 'Python squeeze': Williamson condemns cuts to arts education'', November 16). The comparison he draws with funding to improve the nation's sporting prowess, brawn over brain, should shame our nation's leaders. The selling of TAFE colleges is an inevitable outcome of a competitive training market. Our TAFE colleges have been turned into retail outlets selling courses to customers. Our teachers have been transformed into business managers. The teaching workforce is casualised and the teacher training has been downgraded. The customer, who has the capacity to pay or benefits from government allowances, becomes the determiner of national and regional training priorities. In this market, big industry is a major beneficiary of taxpayer dollars as are fly-by-night training providers. Investment in TAFE has declined proportionately to the growth of the private training market. This allegedly ensures a more responsive public training system. In practice, it ensures its slow decline. Narrow skills for the workforce have become the dominant priority. Courses for personal and social development have been sacrificed because apparently they have no economic outcome. But, courses for people wishing to return to study, to upgrade or update their skills are also fast disappearing. Cheap, low-quality alternatives are the substitutes. What price a clever and creative country? Jozefa Sobski Haberfield Look here, Mr Williamson, it's all right for you arty types to say ''can we have more money, please'', but spare a thought for the rest of us barbarians. We want our bread and circuses. Sport is non-complex. You don't have to think too much. You don't have to participate if you don't want. And if you're any good at it then you get paid a motza and for some unknown reason heaps of people love you. Really it's a bit like being a theatre-goer, actor or playwright. In fact an English bloke once wrote about the world being a stage: ''And all the men and women are merely football, cricket or netball players.'' James Athanasou Maroubra Slashing sport funding cannot be used as an excuse for obese children or adults (''Slash sport funding and risk nation's health'', November 16). It costs nothing to keep fit by walking and letting children play outdoors instead of sitting in front of a computer or television after school. Robyn Lewis Raglan It is ludicrous to suggest that children must necessarily participate in organised sport in order to be healthy. The main causes of ill-health in the Western world are over-eating and over-drinking, together with lack of ordinary daily exercise. I am 80 years old. I haven't taken organised exercise of any kind since I contrived, at school, to avoid participation in games. Enjoying both food and alcohol, I weigh what I weighed when I was 19, and have so far suffered no ill effects from leading a life in which exercise has consisted simply of reasonable daily walking. As for the notion that organised sport encourages respect for discipline and rules - has Brad Walter watched any organised sport lately? A good number of professional sportsmen demonstrate rather that breaking the rules is the way to fame and fortune. As for gold medals - is the idolisation of a man or woman simply because he or she demonstrates physical dominance over someone else actually a practice of any value at all? What could possibly be going on? No cause for alarm, dear reader, just another property/mining deal going down in the Emerald City. Derek Douglas McMahons Point On the beat - or doing the beating I can see all the Joe Thug police around the world figuring their best shot at promotion in policing is to migrate to NSW (''Taser police kept on normal duties'', November 16). Terry Simpson Point Clare Following the shooting murders of two policewomen on the beat in London earlier this year, there were calls for officers on the beat to be given guns. The calls were refused - officers on the beat continue to go unarmed, citing ''tradition'' as the leading reason. What does the NSW Police think ''tradition'' is? The Wild West? Alexander Elliott Bilgola Plateau What happened to a short sharp jab or whack with a truncheon? Michael Skinner Blackheath If a police officer was the only thing between me and my family and a drug-crazed, alcohol-fuelled criminal I'd much prefer an old-style cop, adequately armed and committed to protecting me and other law-abiding citizens, thank you. Unlike Pierre Mars (Letters, November 16), I wouldn't give a damn about his or her ATAR. Stuart Salvage Huskisson In days of old ... This latest ICAC inquiry makes the days of the old brown paper bag pale into insignificance. Paint us another one The loyalty, expertise and corporate memory of these people is only worth a piddling $500,000 a year? What brilliant mind came up with that one? Watch this space for other government institutions having to do the same due to Macquarie Street brilliance. I'd love to see the full explanation of just how this amount is to be saved when the norm is that contractors cost a premium over the salaries of the workers they replace. Show us the calculations. Patrick Dodd Wahroonga It's just politics Julia Gillard is not above the law, Leo (Letters, November 16). There are no charges against her - unsubstantiated allegations by politically biased opponents. Stephen Thomas Wahroonga Certain memories best passed over Relax, Campo, the Kiwis are only getting revenge for our underarm bowling in ''that'' pyjamas match (''Sack Deans, says angry Campese'', November 16 ). We just have to ensure they don't plant a coach in our cricket team. Regarding passing, I remember you gave a shocker in your own in-goal. Frank Tweedie Morpeth In a short note Nathan Lee's list of acronyms (Letters, November 16) missed out on one of the most important: NIMTOFF (Not In My Term Of Office). Bruce Hyland Daleys Point Cheers to that As Movember winds down, hard on the heels of Ocsober, Sidetember and Dry July, I wonder if there is a link to the recent sharemarket slide. All that abstinence can't be good for the economy, with barbers, bartenders and bottle-shop attendants twiddling their thumbs for extended periods. The economy needs stimulation. I reckon we should have a month when we keep a record of drinks consumed and in return breweries, distillers and wine producers contribute to a charity of our choice. Next month looks good. Let's call it Bendercember. James McArdle Sanctuary Point Man of many parts Marie Watkins (Letters, November 16) suggests the next actor to play 007 should be Tony Abbott, but I have been told by numerous talent scouts that he is the leading contender for the role of Dr No. Early warning Unseasonal chill With a couple of days of warm weather last week I put away the heater and Doona. Big mistake. I fall for it every year. Down to 20 degrees today and jumper on. Philip Lidbury Marrickville Postscript The Catholics got a drubbing from all angles all week - and for a good reason, according to most readers. The ''louts'' who rubbished the reputation of St John's College with their alcohol-fuelled antics were front page. Frank Adshead called them ''disgusting and shameless'', although Sarah Bell, a former student at St John's College, asked that not all students ''be tarred with the same brush''. Not satisfied with the Premier's order for a ''diluted, narrow'' inquiry - as John Fryer described it - into claims of interference in police investigations of alleged paedophile Catholic priests in the Hunter Valley, many readers demanded a nationwide royal commission. Their prayers were answered. The next day the Prime Minister launched the most comprehensive inquiry into child sexual abuse in Australia's history with a nationwide royal commission. Readers welcomed the move and many called Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox, who blew the whistle on alleged abuses and cover-ups by the church in the Hunter, a hero. But few were satisfied with Cardinal Pell's insistence on the sanctity of the confessional and his claim there was a smear campaign against the church. Julian Brown said the Catholic leader was in denial. But Pell had his defenders. Martin Fitzgerald said the archbishop had done more to uncover child sexual abuse than any other senior cleric in Australia. Sins of the flesh stayed on the minds of readers thanks to the now former CIA director David Petraeus's bed-hopping, but raising blood pressure was the coroner's findings into the death of a Brazilian student after ''thuggish'' police used a Taser on him. Annabel Little wondered why no one had been charged with manslaughter. Marc McEvoy Letters co-editor This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.


Experimental algorithm trades stocks based on superstition You could make investments based on market trends or finely tuned financial data, or you could just leave it all up to Shing Tat Chung and his Superstitious Fund Project -- an experimental fund that executes trades based on lunar cycles, numerology, and other superstitions. At the core of the fund is an Automated Trading System affectionately known as Sid the Superstitious Robot. Sid isn't a robot, per se, but a computer program that buys or sells stocks using a superstition-based algorithm (source code available for download here ). The bot won't buy any stocks on the 13th of the month, and avoids the number 13 altogether. It also adjusts its behavior based on the lunar cycle, interpreting the new moon as a sign of auspice, and the full moon as a bad omen. Sid starts selling its shares with more alacrity as the full moon approaches, for fear that it may have drastic effects on investors and the market as a whole. "an unproven, highly speculative experiment" Chung, 25, originally launched the project out of his own interest with superstition, which he wrote about extensively on his personal blog. Over time, though, the recent Royal College of Art graduate realized the potential for larger, real-world experimentation, and decided to bring his fund to the FTSE100. "I wanted to poke fun at our superstitions," he told the BBC . "But I also wanted to highlight our irrational nature in a way that is less critical and more about encouraging dialogue." The Superstitious Fund began trading on June 1st (on the advice of a soothsayer), and will remain active for one year. Chung plans to benchmark its performance against other stock indices,and, in the event that he sees gains, will pay dividends to his investors. Thus far, though, things have been rather rocky. In the three weeks since Chung's fund went live, its value dropped by 12 percent from its starting point of 5,000 ($7,821). The NASDAQ100 index, by comparison, rose by four percent over the same period. The fund has since rebounded a bit, though Chung has gone out of his way to remind investors of the risks at stake. Each e-mail he sends out includes the following disclaimer: "Please be aware, that this is an unproven, highly speculative, experiment and a project with the risk of total loss."


Post navigation Sachin's century of centuries World admires Little Master as unique milestone is reached Tendulkar finally reached his 100th hundred against Bangladesh this morning It seemed to take an age. The cricketing world has held its collective breath, patiently waiting as inning after innings went by. Scores in single figures, double figures, in the 70's and 90's. But no centuries. Sachin Tendulkar was stranded on 99. Until now. This morning the 'Little Master' finally made it to the milestone. It seemed that the mark had been weighing him down. Little wonder, with the entire Indian population on his shoulders. Since he got his ninety-ninth century during last years World Cup, Tendulkar has had the world's press on edge whenever he has taken guard. People were sure he would get there during India's tour of England in the summer. He passed 50 twice, including an innings of 91 at the Oval, which when ended was almost mourned as much as it was celebrated by the home fans. From there he went home to India where the West Indies waited. The first Test saw Sachin make scores of seven and 76 while in the second he made 38. The third Test, at his home ground in Mumbai, a place where he had scored only one previous Test century, seemed to be the perfect place to achieve the unthinkable. Having watched the West Indies rack up nearly 600 in the first two days, when he got in, Sachin was determined not to get out. Ending day three on 67, the cricketing world was forced to hold its breath over night. They needn't have as he was out quickly the next morning. A tour to Australia couldn't do the trick, despite some fine knocks.  Specualation mounted as to whether Tendulkar would ever get there. Had he psyched himself out?  Was the pursuit of the goal undermining him, and more importantly, the team?  After all, India's form since the search for the century begun had been wretched. But then, with doubts surfacing, along came the Asia Cup, the little reported but one-day competition that probably would have passed even the most observant cricket fan by were it not for Tendulkar's presence.  Having failed in the first game, Sachin took to the crease against Bangladesh for the second with one thing on his mind.  100 runs later -- the time elephant has left the room at last.  While it may not have been the grand occasion he might have wanted, there was a sense of fate as this was his first century against Bangladesh. So finally, he has done the deed. But what does this achievement mean in terms of the history of cricket and for Tendulkar's future? Well, it is a unique achievement. By becoming the first and perhaps only man to reach such a landmark, Tendulkar has set himself apart. It is a testament to his longevity and brilliance over all forms of the game. No man has adapted so well between Test match and One Day cricket. 51 centuries in Tests and 49 in ODI's is testament to his equal brilliance in both formats. The worry for Indian's everywhere will now be what Sachin does next. This was the target everyone was looking at. What else is there? He has become the record run scorer of all time. He became the first batsmen to score a ODI double century. What is the end game for Tendulkar? Perhaps it is to see India gain revenge over England for the 4-0 whitewash this year. The return series takes place in early 2013, by which time Sachin would be a few months shy of his 40th birthday. Scoring runs and leading his nation to glory at that stage of his career would be quite an achievement. Then it could be time to hang up the floppy white sun hat for good. They say life begins at 40. When will Sachin begin the second part of his?


Even years later, Bobby still sometimes had to resort to less than glamorous plays. Somewhere in your knowledge of hockey, there is a line. This line sits on a particular date, although chances are you couldn't say exactly which date it was; it was too long ago to remember, and back then you weren't counting anyway. On one side of this line are the things you know personally: the games, players, editions of teams and incarnations of the League you yourself have followed through the course of your life. On the other side are all the things you've only heard about in stories and montages, things that were over and done before your time. One side of the line is memory. The other is myth. Memory and myth engender two fundamentally distinct types of response. Players we remember ourselves are familiar creatures, we love them like friends or hate them like rivals. No old legend can ever arouse half the same tender affection we feel towards the men who inspired us as kids, even if those men were, objectively speaking, average practitioners of the game. But similarly we feel entitled to dissect and critique the players of our own time, no matter how great they were. Fans of my generation are fully capable of abjectly venerating Wendel Clark and snarkily deflating Wayne Gretzky, despite the obvious skill deferential and the certain verdict of history. And that's fine. In fact, it's one of the privileges of "being there", in the game, at a particular moment- the right to reimagine the grand narratives of hockey through your own idiosyncratic experience. But back on the other side of that line, things are different.  Nobody snarks about Rocket Richard or Howie Morenz anymore.  Nobody really challenges their legacy or reinterprets their achievements or even bothers to accuse them of diving.  The players who came before us we take as they are given, as a set of songs and stories, hockey cards and highlight reels.  Most of the time, we don't even think of them, but when we do, we think of them as archetypes rather than people.  They've been drained of their blood and pumped full of formaldehyde and reverence, not very much more human than their statues. Bobby Orr is right on the cusp of this transition.  He's ossifying before our very eyes. There are still several generations of fans who watched him play personally, but there are also several generations of fans who have no such experience. For half of us, he is a piece of living memory and for the other half he is already a legend. He is, at this exact moment, passing into myth.  To most hockey fans now, his hovering statue outside TD Garden is more him than his own 64-year-old body is. But of course Bobby Orr is one of those players who seems like he might have been a myth right from the beginning. The story is just too right, like a Canadian fairy tale that hockey moms told their sons back in the 40s when no one had so much as heard of an Orr and players named Robert would go by Bob. What sort of NHLer actually comes up poor in a small town, playing on frozen sloughs with newspaper stuffed in the toes of his skates and Sears catalogs strapped to his shins?  Is that even a real thing?  Are we sure that Parry Sound isn't some elaborate, Truman Show-like bubble created by HNIC in order to create good documentary footage?  Because, Occam's razor, that really does sound like a more plausible explanation than "coincidentally one day hockey Jesus was born in hockey Bethlehem and grew up to save the Bruins from eternal damnation." Even if you leave aside the eerily perfect creation story, Bobby Orr has a way of accreting weird, quasi-legendary tales.  They say that he never tightened his laces, that he'd be sitting on the bench with his foot out of the boot and the whole skate dangling from his toes until Sinden tapped his shoulder, and then he'd just punch his foot down and jump the boards.  He only used one line of tape on his stick because more would make it feel 'too heavy'.  These stories aren't about accomplishments; they're about superpowers.  No mortal man plays hockey with loose skates and no tape. Even beyond that, though, there's yet another layer to the legend, for in addition to being a prototypical Good Canadian Boy and a prototypical genetic mutant freak, Orr represents a prototypical Way of Hockey.  Some players are famous because of the numbers they racked up, and certainly the digits are a part of the Orr mystique, but Bobby is one of the few, rare players who is probably more famous for his style than for his records.  His highlights all showcase a particular exotic talent: speed without rushing, vision without looking, a kinaesthetic sense that stretched across the entire expanse of the ice and allowed the man to cover the whole crowded distance from one end to the other as if it were no more than 200 feet of frozen river.  To compare a player to Bobby Orr is to invoke the rarest, loveliest, wildest heights of hockey art.  It is to compare him to Superman. Really, everything you need to know about the myth of Bobby Orr is this: he was a hockey player who, even only once, could fly. *** I don't have any of Bobby Orr's famous games. I don't have the Stanley Cup Finals in 1970 or 1972.  I don't have the game where he flew. It's easy to find the highlights, but tough to find the old games in their entirety. I take what I can get, and in the case of Orr, what I can get are a few ordinary regular season matches.  The hockey of October and January, not of April and June. In 1968, Hockey Night in Canada was a much smaller production.  A quick intro of intercut stills to the familiar theme, a couple of minutes of talking by an uncomfortable-looking gentleman with a head like uncooked bread dough, and then we're on to the anthems.  The players stand strictly at attention and perfectly still, no amphetamine fidgets, no bouncing in their skates.  Everyone has hair buzzed close the scalp or shellacked down with a half-pound of grease. No one is wearing a helmet except for Paul Henderson, who is still four years away from the moment that will make him a legend.  Even Phil Esposito looks like he'd call you "ma'am" and offer to carry your groceries for you.  Simpler times. Even in black and white, even with the fuzzy resolution and the motion blur, it's easy to pick out Bobby Orr. If you couldn't recognize the hair, you'd notice the skating, and if you didn't notice the skating, you'd see the deference. It's the beginning of his third year in the NHL, he's only twenty and still looks a little slight for a defenseman, but his teammates treat him like an anointed king. When Bobby wants the puck, Bobby gets the puck. When Bobby wants to go deep, he goes deep. The other Bruins circle around, adjusting as needed, giving him the space to follow whatever odd impulses come to him. It's not so much that he's doing anything especially remarkable as that everyone on the ice appears to be waiting, hoping, for him to do something remarkable. There might be a miracle. Any second now. Middle of the first he gets the puck behind his net and starts to skate it up, and I think, maybe this is it. Maybe this is where the awesome shit starts to happen. I'm on the edge of the couch, bouncing a little, excited for some Bobby-fucking-Orr hockey. This is going to be great. He skates across the defensive blue line, goes around a Leafs forward every bit as easily as the stories say, crosses the red line and... dumps it. WHAT? I am still in shock at the very notion of Bobby Orr making a dump in, when, less  than a minute later, he does it again.  Carries it just slightly more than half the distance, just far enough to evade an icing call, and slaps it the rest of the way in. A few minutes later, there's another one. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen, because dude can obviously get around people.  In between his own blue line and the red, he does it every time.  And yet, come that half of the neutral zone on the Leafs' side of the ice, even with no pressure and all the time in the world, Bobby Orr is perfectly content to just bang that puck off the back boards and let his forwards scramble for it.  This isn't just a once or twice thing, it's not just a PK thing.  He does it again and again and again.  He does it on the power play.  He does it for no goddamn apparent reason. By the third period, frankly, I am pretty fucking pissed at Bobby Orr. I am shouting at the TV, shouting back in time as if the force of my annoyance could somehow transcend the laws of physics and echo through the 60s: you are Bobby Orr. You are literally, actually, no-joke no-metaphor the 100% real Bobby-fucking-Orr. You are the archetypal model for puck-moving, rushing, scoring defensepersons. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DUMP IT IN. That's WRONG. WHAT?! NO, NOT AGAIN. STOP IT BOBBY STOP IT. And then I give up, and revise everything I thought I knew about Bobby Orr. Or, as am now thinking of him, Bobby Dump-In. Sure, there are excuses. You want me to make excuses for Bobby Orr? I can do that. I can say, look, it was a dump-and-chase game back then. Even sans Bobby, the Bruins are dumping the puck constantly and from every position; obviously there's a coaching influence at work. Maybe it's because the Leafs were a good team- certainly they hold their blue line hard- and Boston is trying to keep things simple. Maybe it's because they were so used to being bad they hadn't figured out how to be good yet. Or maybe it's because Orr was just back from his first off-season knee surgery, and we all know rehabilitation wasn't sophisticated back then as it is now. Maybe he's taking it easy on purpose, or maybe he's still working on getting his stamina back. But whatever the reason, the fact remains: here is Bobby Orr not playing at all like a Bobby-Orr-type player. Stephen Brunt, in his excellent biography Searching for Bobby Orr , tells me that coaches never tried to reign in his natural creativity, yet here he is playing dump-and-chase just like everyone else on his team, presumably at someone's direction. Brunt tells me that, sure, Bobby left his position in the offensive zone, but he'd always manage to get back in time to cover his defensive responsibilities- yet here he is, letting his man go and losing the footrace back to his own net, crashing ineffectually into the back boards just after the Leafs score. Here is Bobby Orr, still a good player, still obviously gifted, playing basic, uncreative, and occasionally dysfunctional standard-issue 1960s Canadian hockey. Here is Bobby Orr, being kind of boring. Myths are formed of highlights, hyperbole, and forgetting. Bobby Orr got 270 goals and 645 assists in his career, but we haven't seen most them. What we've seen is the same two dozen rushes replayed two hundred times, held up to us as characteristic.  The big numbers combine with the flashy replays to make us imagine a force that never quite was, a type of player who existed not for years on end but only for a few select moments in a few select seasons, a few very very special games. What we forget is that in between those rushes were several hundred ordinary games, where Bobby Orr was subject to all the things that all the lesser players of the world are subject to, not just the apocalyptic injuries but the slow recoveries in between, the off games, the coaching demands, the bad decisions. We forget that sometimes he was outplayed, and sometimes he was outraced, and every now and again he lost, poor kitten. *** Last year, when Erik Karlsson started racking up the pile of points that would lead him to become the second-youngest Norris winner in history,  people obviously began making comparisons to the first-youngest: Bobby Orr in 1968. This very season, that began with this dump-in-fest, would end with him deemed the best defenseman in the League.  Eugene Melnyk (indirectly) and a some Ottawa sportswriters (directly) invoked Orr in talking about Karlsson's potential, but more impressive is this: Other than the use of the word "crap", which no proper hockey person would ever have said aloud to the media in 1968, that could easily be a quote from an old-time scout talking about Bobby Orr in his early days.  But it's not.  That's Bobby Orr, talking about Erik Karlsson. Provoked by all this hyperbole, the always-fascinating Tyler Dellow decided to do a little experiment.  In a post entitled Erik Karlsson, Bobby Orr, and Stats, I , Dellow went through every single one of Karlsson's assists of the year to date and broke down how they happened.  We'll never know what his ultimate conclusion would have been, since Dellow never posted part II of the analysis, but the closest we have is this statement: "The key takeaway from this should be that, of his 27 ES assists this year, about ten of them actually involved Karlsson making a play with deliberate intent to create a scoring chance, as opposed to a play like a pass across the blue line, clearing his own zone or throwing it into the mixer in front of the net". The implication is clear: Karlsson's assists aren't really 'good' assists. They're not playmaking assists. They're not the sort of assists that merit comparison to Bobby Orr.  The presumption, on the part of both Dellow and the Karlsson boosters who made the initial comparisons, is that being a Bobby-Orr-type player means making gorgeous play after gorgeous play, brilliant pass after brilliant pass, rush after rush.  But, based on the look of this one game, anyway, I'd guess plenty of Bobby Orr's Norris-earning assists were accumulated off passes across the blue line, long shots in the general direction of the net, and flat-out dumps, from ordinary, non-mythic plays.  It could be that Karlsson is far closer to playing like the ordinary, non-mythic Bobby Orr than either his supporters or his detractors suspect. Try putting Gretzky or Lemieux or Crosby or Malkin or Ovechkin into the meat-grinder of the late '60?s and early '70?s -- It's unimaginable. Everyone would be (would have been) screaming blue, bloody murder. Back then? It was the only way an entire league of players could deal with, defend against or curtail his speed and talent and instinct. He was simply too good for his time. And, considering what he accomplished, nonetheless? Fuck me. He was "Compleat". Without peer. A freak of nature, thrust into a staid culture that found itself agog and disbelieving. Do you know where I can get my hands on a complete archive of all his games? Because I'd rather see for myself than take anyone's word for it. Not that I doubt his excellence- so many experts, as you say, cannot all be wrong- but I'd love to see the texture of his skill, and how many of his games really were full of the kind of play we customarily associate with his name. Unfortunately, no such archive exists -- The CBC wiped tapes regularly, to reuse them -- And they would have been the primary source, bar-none, in providing such material. I should recommend that you view (if you haven't already) the "NHL Legends of the Game" episode dedicated to Orr (available on youtube,) as well as NHL Network's "The Day That Changed The Game -- May 10, 1970?, along with any and all "found material" (no matter how seemingly self-indulgent) on youtube. It may provide you with a fairly sound body of anecdotal evidence as to Orr's excellence, passion, competitiveness (above all) -- As well as his ready willingness to sacrifice his body, to no end, in his drive to *win*. Curious, how old are you and how much do you actually know about hockey??? Orr IS human, you know. But his bad games were still far better than most players best games OF THE TIME. Like most children being raised today, you think every stride should be a highlight moment based on what you've heard. You watch A game and you weren't instantly gratified because his every stride wasn't fairy-tale-like in your opinion. I grew up in S.E,Mass watching Bobby Orr play and he was as great as you hear about. But I got to see every game and why he came to dominate his sport and why he was the sole reason hockey was picked up by national TV in the U.S. for the first time when he played. I also grew up playing the sport to understand and appreciate the subtle nuances that separates the great from the good. I have yet to see a player who dominated the game the way he did and that includes the "Great One". When asked and without hesitation, Gretzky himself named Orr as the greatest player ever and said he really wished he had the opportunity to be on the same ice with him. Gretzky wasn't half the player Orr was. Orr would skate circles around the opposition and then pound them into submission if they took liberties withh im or his teammates . Gretzky whined about fighting in the game while sending his paid goon McSorley in to do what Orr did for himself. Orr could have easily dominated as a forward, where the Great One would have been Swiss cheese as a defenseman. Want to know how many hockey rinks were built in this area because of Bobby Orr WHILE HE WAS PLAYING? They weren't built years later to honor a myth, we got to see the living legend at the Garden then went on to emulate him on the streets, ponds and damn it if we didn't demand our parents build us rinks and start leagues for us and did they!! The league expanded and hockey had an 800% growth in the U.S. because of Orr while he was playing; greater than the impact Babe Ruth had on baseball!! Know how many kids from New England grew up to become pro's because of Orr during the Orr era? The 1980 U.S. Olympic "Miracle" Team was full of players who were directly influenced by Orr. Mike Eruzione said years after winning the gold when the team came back together, Orr made an appearance. Eruzione said he watched grown men behaving like small children getting a visit from Santa Claus when Orr walked in. Orr is the ONLY defenseman to ever win the scoring title; he did it TWICE. The second time towards the end of his career with really bad knees. He is the ONLY player to ever win 4 major awards in the same year,: Art Ross as scoring champ Norris as best defenseman Hart for regular season MVP Conne Smythe as playoff MVP while on his way to capture the Cup which is immortalized in the most recognized hockey photo that also has raised more money for charity than any other sports photo. The Great One never did that in a single year and not a single player has remotely come close since. And the one thing that separates Robert Gordon Orr from every other athlete in the New England area before or since is the type of human being he is. As ruthless of a competitor as he was on the ice, he is an incredible humanitarian with the kindest heart off the ice . We've had our share of larger than life athletes come to our area and not a one comes close to the reputation that Bobby Orr still has among the sports fans of New England to this day. You watch a game and think you got to see Bobby Orr play??? I watched him throughout his entire career and say you don't know crap. Try contacting NESN or WSBK TV in Boston for game archives and then ask NESN to send you their documentary "Bobby Orr and the Big Bad Bruins". WSBK TV played Bruins games when Orr came to Boston. NESN broadcasts the Bruins these days. I have had the great fortune of having met (and had a drink or two with) quite a few of Orr's team-mates at the time, over these many years: Esposito, Cashman, McKenzie, Hodge, Stanfield, Cheevers as well as other HHoFamers...I have never had the privilege of meeting Bobby. I can honestly say that my reaction to meeting him (hopefully, some day) would pretty much reflect how you described Eruzione's and the Miracle team's reaction: I would, once more, be 10 years-old and it would be Christmas Day. I'm 55, and I would proverbially "piss myself", given such circumstances. Funny cuz I bet Howe said Gretzky was the best ever lol. So gretzkys modest ways allows Howe to be the best? He also said federov was the most skillee player of all time but many wony even rank him in the top 50 of players In the book "Bobby Orr: My Game," Orr says that he used that one little strip of tape on his stick because he assumed there was a rule against having no tape at all. But then, in 73 or 74 I think, he read the actual rule book and learned that there was no such rule, after which he used no tape on his stick at all. I'm pretty sure he also says he thinks the taping the blade tradition is a throw-back to a time when players taped their blades literally to hold the well-used stick together. He talks about the textured fiberglass coating on the then-modern blades being all you need for improved control. Re 200 feet of frozen river: Orr also mentions in the book that when he played on the Sound the nets were closer to 400 feet apart. My memory is that he says there were something like 20 kids on a side, essentially playing keepaway...which makes sense considering how he played as an adult. I think I've actually seen this game and it's not really an interesting one. Another one that is out there is Leafs/Bruins from late in the '70-71 season and Orr is unstoppable. The Leafs go into a full-blown panic every time he touches the puck and how they didn't spend the entire game on the PK is beyond me. Yeah, I've got a few others to go through. But it really was interesting to me to see an 'uninteresting' game, just to be reminded that EVERYONE has such games, even the legends. It's good to remember that even the greatest talents aren't 100% consistent or free of the constraints of their team and era. Ideally, maybe it makes us a little more forgiving of the great talents we see in our own time? But you've seen lots of Gretzky, right? Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, they all had/have ordinary games, make mistakes. Did you really need to see an ordinary Orr game to realize that he didn't make a spectacular play every time he was on the ice? No, but there's a difference between knowing such things in the abstract and actually using them as functional knowledge, particularly when- as in the Karlsson case- we use "Bobby Orr" as a metonym for a certain largely unachievable ideal play style. If we want to have these kinds of conversations, comparing modern players to Orr (or Gretzky, or Eddie Shore, or whoever really), we can't do it from a standpoint of examining the micro-flaws in the game of the modern guy while characterizing the old legend based entirely on his highlights. The conversation has to involve a nuanced view of both players. I suppose, at this point, what I'm trying to do is open a conversation about the nuances of Bobby Orr's game that I haven't really heard elsewhere. Have you tried checking the NHL Vault? It's accessible with a Game Centre Live account or you can pay $5/month to access it (and maybe you can get NHL.com to hook you up with one given that you're blogging at the Score). They have a lot of old games archived on there, and might have some more Orr games (I don't have an account at the moment due to, well, y'know). I'm assuming that's where you found the game you did watch, but if not, it's worth a try. Hockey is game alot like soccer . A constantly moving struggle for possession with 'moments' of brilliance these moments like goals themselves are the exception. An average player may have one every 10 games a great one one every 5. The best 'Orr 'one every 3 ? What makes an alltime player..one of legend is his/her imagination! To do things others haven't attempted or to do it in a manner not seen. This IS Orr's greatness- defenceman never played like this O&D all over the ice. Also, Hockey still is a team game & Boston was a weak sister His complementary cast was never as good as Montreal. Something that needs to be considered.. And yet in 1969-70, he won the Hart, Art Ross, Norris, Conn Smythe and Stanley Cup. For all the chip-and-chase, he must have been doing something right. I think it's worth mentioning that Bobby Orr probably wasn't really Bobby Orr until that 69-70 season. If the game you've watched is from 1968, that's a season in which he finished outside the top-20 in scoring with 64 points -- still a strong output, but one that he doubled the very next season. Point is, you probably watched a game of "Bobby Orr the good defenseman," not of "Bobby Orr the generational talent." The guy from this generation that is going to be deified is probably Nick Lidstrom. Some have already referred to the guy as "the perfect human," so I can only imagine what the hyperbole is going to be like in 20+ years. Wow. This is horrible even for a blog. Bobby dump in? Have you ever seen the movie "The Best of Bobby Orr", or anything beyond one game? Hockey is a team sport, made up of individuals, not individuals who make a team. It invloves strategy and smarts. Please before you belittle one of the most respected men in the history of the game of hockey, keep in mind the damage the written word can do, it is impossible to take it back. I think the point here is that movies like "The Best of Bobby Orr" only show us highlights, and to people who weren't around watching all the games at the time seeing only such highlights creates an unrealistic picture of his general gameplay. With such a picture in mind it is difficult to make appropriate comparisons between players like Orr and new players like Karlsson, whose highlight reel plays (if they happen) are still to come in the future. I don't think anything said here could be considered "damaging" or "belittling" to Bobby at all -- it's just the reflection of someone watching the mundanity of his general play for the first time, and using that to give context to comparisons made between his play and contemporary players. I never, once, said he was average. My point is that even the greatest player in the game played ordinary sometimes, whether because of injury, coaching, or running up against hot opposition. That ordinariness WAS a component of his greatness, it was real, it happened too, just as much as the highlights did. When we imagine what Bobby Orr was, and especially when we compare him to modern players (who we get to see every game, warts and all) we should remember that the flashes of brilliance were still something that required tremendous struggle to achieve and didn't always work out the right way. Humanizing him is a way of reflecting honestly on the inconsistent and imperfect nature of hockey talent, not denigrating him. A roast? Did you read the article or just react to the title? The most negative this article gets about Orr is saying that *in this particular game* he wasn't the Superman on the ice one might expect based on the stories. Ellen, you're great on the more distant history, but this one just feels like it has no context, no comparison, just... "Bobby Orr dumped the puck in a lot in this one game." If the game was in 1968, for instance, then the revolution which Bobby wrought was only in its first peekingest-out moment. Have you looked at how many points even All-Star defencemen of those years got? 25. 35. 45 max. That's it. Orr came in, and just from ages 18-19-20, as he was just starting he revved the engines to 65 points -- and had already broken the goal-scoring record. And yet, at that age, he was still playing diffidently, shyly, having to fight for room on the ice, for respect -- for himself and his team-mates. The Bruins had been bums, historically, and were just starting to get going, developing a style. Look -- you think the Leafs are bad? the bruins had missed the play-offs 8 STRAIGHT YEARS in the 1960?s before Orr arrived. They were just starting to get a sniff of how good they might be. Esposito had just come over to start 1967-68, for instance, along with Hodge and Stanfield. Cashman was just breaking in in 1968-69, Sanderson was a rookie in 1967-68, and so the Big Bad Bruins -- and that offensive juggernaut -- was just beginning. But Orr, he was already, by 1968, not just unusual on the ice, but off it -- he went under the surgeons's knife. Twice. Plus he got a wicked bad concussion (from Quinn) where he was stretchered off, plus a broken collarbone and separated shoulder. And those are just the injuries Wiki lists. So if he dumps the puck in, the absolute gold standard for defencemen of that time, it could be because he was still new... or maybe he was hobbled... or maybe the Bruins felt they could pound the Leaf defencemen of that era... or or or.... Or maybe Orr was a bore. But just in case you think that, tune in in 1969-70. I know you have some respect for stats, so try this. The NHL went from a time when guys like Ted Harris could make the 2nd All-Star team with 25 points ('68-69) to Orr scoring 33 goals and getting 120 points. With a plus of 54. It starts to get extremely tough to compare him to other defencemen. And then, there was 1970-71. 37 goals, 139 points and a +134. Think about that. We all know plus/minus it isn't a perfect stat, but you want to know how he was on an average night, so turn that little rock over in your hand for a bit. He scored 139 points, and had a plus of 154. Now, try to think about how many average games he had in there, of the 78 he played. Can't be many, can there? Because Bobby Orr was on the ice not just for 154 goals, but for 154 MORE than the other team scored at even strength. Do the math on that. 2 per game. 2 goals more were score when he was on the ice, per game, each game, all year long. And that was just at even strength. Now add in the Boston powerplay. On which, Esposito had 25 goals, and Bucyk 22 and Hodge 4. That's your #1 PP unit, right there, and Bobby Orr was on it. So... he was probably on for another 51 goals or so there. Was he likely on the ice for some goals against, when the other team was on the PP? Sure. Except he also had 3 Short-handed goals in 70-71. In fact, Boston's main PK guys scored more than 20 short-handed goals that year. Orr likely set up a dozen of them. And by then... he was already transforming the game. Guys like Brad Park and Guy Lapointe were being headhunted and then unleashed, to eb followed by the Denis Ootvin's and Larry's Robinson's and Paul Coffey's and Salming's and Turnbull's. You'd never have seen them otherwise. Well, maybe you would. But you never DID see them before Orr. After him, they were great, sure. But not really in his league. Great blog, the kind of thing I've thought about. I did see Orr play, but I compare it to the mythos surrounding Babe Ruth. If you took a time machine and picked a random Yankee game from the 20?s or 30?s, there's a chance you'd see a game where the Babe whiffs three times and fouls out to the catcher, and mishandles a ball in the outfield because he's hung over and bloated from eating a dozen hot dogs before the game...