Hi, James!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

AH>  Yum, yum!  Necessity is the mother of invention....  :-))

JB>  Not to mention it was *all* they ate, until the dandelions
JB>  were up in spring.


          Hmm.  Could be too much of a good thing, I guess... [wry grin].



AH>  You got me thinking, too.

JB>  Who...  Me?


          Yes, you!  As an NT I like that....  ;-)



JB>  Rewired a harness, did you?  I'm having a hard
JB>  enough time finding the starter on my 1-ton. 


          Well... we did it in days gone by when time, energy, and
willingness to rush in where angels might fear to tread came to us more
easily than money. After the wiring harness on our car had fried itself for
no obvious reason, we got a similar one from a local junk yard.  Then we
had to figure out where all the remaining fragments under the dash went
& substitute the replacement bits. It took both of us the better part
of one weekend to complete the job....  :-)



JB>  Ground troops, I believe, needed vision that could be
JB>  corrected with glasses, and feet that weren't flat.
JB>  (Proof: I know this is stopping short of the full story.
JB>  While crushing shredded wheat into the yogurt, I thought
JB>  my point is "occluded". Knowing the term from weather, as
JB>  in "an occluded front", and from mineralogy, as in "This
JB>  diamond has an occlusion." I thought the word might have
JB>  an application in this point, but I wasn't too sure. As my '
JB>  dictionary' didn't exhaust the point, maybe I should just
JB>  call it "Simplistic", and rest knowing that that would
JB>  likely be more accurate anyway. |-)


          I'm not too sure either, but I see you're digging below the
surface. It seems to me that what folks tend to refer to as
"corrected" vision has been made more "normal"... i.e.
as if there's an underlying assumption that what is not "normal"
is by definition inherently flawed & should if possible be fixed. I've
used the term myself without consciously thinking about it.  However, I'm
reminded of an older friend... once employed as a watchmaker... who was in
his forties & had transferred to another line of work at the time of
the following incident.  He offered the use of a jeweller's loupe
(magnifying glass) to look at something he was showing me & Dallas.  I
tried it... then I chuckled & said "No thanks, I can see better
with my glasses off!"  He made small items appear bigger by using a
loupe where I could do the same by holding them closer to my eyes.  Both of
us needed *adaptive* lenses... but for different purposes.  :-)



AH>  If the kids in my PE class groan loudly and/or make fun
AH>  of me because I can't hit the broad side of a barn, while
AH>  I can read rings around them, I'll choose activities where
AH>  the chances of success are greater....  ;-)

JB>  You're *teaching* PE? If so, you have no business
JB>  demonstrating the activities. 


          I was thinking of my own experience as a student there.  I did
teach PE (sort of) on a couple of occasions, however, while I was working
at a small elementary school.  I substituted briefly for a very pregnant
colleague with a grade two class... did a "snap, clap, and tap"
thing with music which the kids loved & which got them moving their
bodies.  On another occasion I volunteered to act as head teacher for a
week while most of the intermediate students were at camp & somebody
had to remain behind with those who couldn't go.  One day I took the latter
for a walk & told them what I knew about the wild plants which grew
along the roadside... thus combining PE & science.  Another day we
played softball together, and I realized that at thirty-something I could
do about as well as the average ten-year-old can.  Maybe I'm just a late
bloomer....  :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+