The Tao of Catch
|
It is difficult to predict what topics will cause conversations to flourish and prose to sparkle. John Gilgun just wanted to know why anyone would want to play catch. A baseball. Two people. Two gloves. Back and forth. Mind-numbing repetition. It looked to him like a very boring, very useless activity. On Monday, May 6, 1996, he ask his colleagues on CREWRT-L what they thought. He found, from the responses, that "catch" might be boring, but it's not useless, especially not as a topic of conversation. |
|
|---|---|
| John Gilgun: | A query |
| Wendy Battin: | Zazen, yes |
| David Hopes: | Bonding, yes |
| Jim Cervantes: | Yes! |
| Russ Kesler: | An unarticulated bond |
| Halvard Johnson: | Found art |
| Maxianne Berger: | Proprioception & synecdoche |
| John Gilgun: | A game with no score? |
| Heidi Jo Walters: | Laughter |
| Palmer Hall: | Competitive satori? |
| Carrie Hemenway: | Pennies & chimneys & parental
relations |
| Valentine M. Smith: | Generations of bonding |
| Kate Bozich: | Rhythm, indefinitely |
| Ed Byrne: | Miss & chase |
| Gary Arms: | Catch as catch can, or 90mile-an-hour baseballs for breakfast |
| Jim Cervantes: | Quantification de zen |
| Ed Byrne: | Pepper danger |
| Susan York: | Peeps into the past |
| Jim Cervantes: | Throw the other side of catch |
 visits here since 07 May 1996 |
|
Care to contribute a comment on catch? Anything is fine: poetry, prose, literary & cultural theorizing, whatever.