Computer Science Canada Favorite Channel |
Author: | Anonymous [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Favorite Channel |
What's everyones favorite channel? Mine is G4TechTV, I love Call For Help and the old Screen Savers. Attack of the Show can be a little perverted/gay sometimes. |
Author: | TheFerret [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:06 am ] |
Post subject: | |
#compsci.ca P.S. Nothing wrong with being a lil gay... |
Author: | Dan [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:38 am ] |
Post subject: | |
#area51 Used to love TechTV but simpley it is dead. G4TechTV dose not even use the TechTV part any more excpet in out of date logos and clips. Also call for help and leo are not officaly part of G4 any more, they just buy his show for canadian viewers only. You can now download it for 99 cents an ep tho if you do not whont to suport G4. X-Play is the only good show they have left, and they know it. Witch is why they are now buying up the rights to show non tech or game realted shows. Soon the hole network will go bankrpupt or just trun in to one show. (Realy it is only 2 shows now). But even X-Play is falling aprent and being recuded in quality even ep. |
Author: | Mazer [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It might be a toss-up between channel 9 and channel 13. As a rule of thumb there's almost nothing good on, ever, but on Saturday mornings you can see some of the surviving halfway decent cartoon shows pop up. Still, gotta be careful because they really mix it in with the crap. |
Author: | Amailer [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Space... yeah, thats right. |
Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Discovery |
Author: | apomb [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:50 am ] |
Post subject: | |
G4TechTV ... would be even more my favourite if it were strictly G4, not this overlay of canadian programming for Bell Expressview crap. That and Discovery (Channels 515 and 520 respectively) |
Author: | r.3volved [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Discovery is my favorite cable channel My streaming cartoon folder would have to my favorite collection of TV shows |
Author: | Bored [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:43 am ] |
Post subject: | |
My favourite would be The Comedy Network. I looooooves comedy! |
Author: | Dan [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
CompWiz333 wrote: G4TechTV ... would be even more my favourite if it were strictly G4, not this overlay of canadian programming for Bell Expressview crap. That and Discovery (Channels 515 and 520 respectively)
Ummm, G4 only has 1 show now. Witch is AOTS. X-Play is aucatly a TechTV show and even AOTS is a exteramly bad reicantion of a TechTV show called the screen savers but they realy are not the same show any more. The only other G4 crap is cheat witch is not even a show realy. Leo and the cadaian based shows + X-Play are the only things holding that network together. And now since they gave up the rights for call for help and all the other cadain shows they are just going to be X-Play and AOTS. Shame they plan on geting ride of adam from X-Play, and runeing that one too. (he is over the age limit of 30 so he has to go.) |
Author: | timmytheturtle [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Does bittorrent count as a channel? I don't have cable or a satelite so I don't watch a TV, I don't even know if the tv in my room works. |
Author: | Cervantes [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Back home, I had CBC, Omni1, CTV, TVO, Global, and CityTV. Go CBC! |
Author: | MysticVegeta [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
timmytheturtle wrote: Does bittorrent count as a channel?
I don't have cable or a satelite so I don't watch a TV, I don't even know if the tv in my room works. wow how do youlive without tv???! Thats crazy... |
Author: | Amailer [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If you got used to not watching tv, you'll be able to live without it... |
Author: | Clayton [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
How do you think the people of thousands of years ago got along? Alot of people today say that youth arent getting enough excercise and are spending a way too much time in front of a television or other electronic gadget. I have to say that I tend to agree with them. It's rather scary to see almost all of my classmates overweight to the degree that they are. This is a problem in today's society and it needs to be dealt with. A good start would be to make gym mandatory for a longer amount of time, especially through high school. |
Author: | Dan [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
SuperFreak82 wrote: How do you think the people of thousands of years ago got along? Alot of people today say that youth arent getting enough excercise and are spending a way too much time in front of a television or other electronic gadget. I have to say that I tend to agree with them. It's rather scary to see almost all of my classmates overweight to the degree that they are. This is a problem in today's society and it needs to be dealt with. A good start would be to make gym mandatory for a longer amount of time, especially through high school.
I totaly disagrea with that. First of all we have to understand what over wegith realy is. The news and socity tells us that every year we all get fater and fater and it is becues of tehcnogly. But if you look back threw hisotry you will notice somthing intresting. In almost all the paintings and art found women and men do not look like the super models we see today, in fact they whould be over weight by todays standeres. In my option it is not that we are all gaining more weigth but that the deftion of being over weight has slow become more and more out of step with reality. Also with most peoleop there is a set gentic wegiht and the only way to not be this wait is to litery strave your self or work out to an extream degrea every day till you die. With most peoleop this gentic weight is over what socity whould say is the right area. Now another impornt thing we need to consdier is what realy are the dangures of being over weight by socitys deftion? Well obvesly in extream cases like 300lb it will kill you and cause permident damge. But what about peoleop who are in the high 100s to low 200s? Shure there is a small chance of heart desies that is increased and other incresed chances for other condtions but they are hardly a high enougth persent that you can say you will die or even that it is likey that you die form it. I think in the end what we need to realises is that we should be happy with our bodys no matter what they look like and that fighting agisted what is in your genes is only going to cause you pain both psyical and mentaly. Forcing your self to compley to socitys standeres will only casues sufring and you should be true to your self. I say i whould rather live a short happy content life then a long drawn out one constly worrying about my wegiht and doing things i do not like and startving my self just to add a few crapy years on to my life where i will get to live in a nursing home and can not even feed my self. As for making more gym mandorty, i think that is a very proly thought out idea. In fact, i think in it's curent state, the mandtory gym in high school is bearly legal. Most gym clases, at least the one in my high school whould aucatly mark you down for not perfoming to the averag. This is discirmtory agisted peoleop who are simpley not genticaly athlitck and had no choice in taking this class or not. Another factor is that gym class in high school can be extermaly embersing and stressfull for the kind of peoleop you whould be aiming this at. Instend of making them lose weight this whould rather help to desotry there self esteam and cause depresion witch will lead to more inactivey and an increase in over eating do to it. If you realy whont to try to bring peoleop to there gentic wegiht, then insted of gym class you should have a health class that teaches things like healthy eating and healty activetys that are enjoyable well also encoreging peoleop to be comfortable with there bodys and acecpt who there are genticaly and mentaly. This whould masively imporve problems we have with body image in socity today well also helping the health acpescts. Unfrontly for many tho, this also means that you will have to acpect that the super model image given to us by socity is not real and that peoleop are naturaly "curvey" and not pumed with mussles. |
Author: | Clayton [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I know what you are saying Dan and i totally agree, however, when i say overweight, i dont mean overweight compared to the 80lb supermodel standing next to the kid, im talking about grossly overweight, the kids that obviously care nothing about trying to stay fit and enjoy an active lifestyle, as for the gym thing, if someone is really that embarassed, they will do their best to improve, and show up the "jocks". Also, I'm not saying we shouldnt be happy with who we are, but we should however, try and keep our bodies in good condition, whether you are genetically a pear, or a pumpkin, does not matter. Staying fit will allow you to enjoy life more fully and ultimately bring your self-confidence through the roof. |
Author: | Dan [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
SuperFreak82 wrote: im talking about grossly overweight, the kids that obviously care nothing about trying to stay fit and enjoy an active lifestyle
What right do you have to say there lifestyle is wrong? They are enjoying there own life style. Shure it may not be the best for there health but that dose not mean they should be suhend by socity. Simpley it dose not effect you and if you are so shalow that it effects your realtions to them you realy should start looking in the mirror befor talking about making improments to other peoelp. SuperFreak82 wrote: as for the gym thing, if someone is really that embarassed, they will do their best to improve, and show up the "jocks". The reason why they are embarassed is becues of socity, not becues of there selves. In fact in most cases they probly whould be happy with there life if it was not for out side inference from "jocks" and other socialy gorups. And once you are happy with your life and have self estaeam then your natural weight will be much easyer to obtain. I have never hured of any person you desrebie ever whonting to go to gym to show up jocks and realy if you think that is how life works i think once again you should be looking in the mirror. Since your life should be about you not other peoleop's views of you. Quote: Also, I'm not saying we shouldnt be happy with who we are, but we should however, try and keep our bodies in good condition, whether you are genetically a pear, or a pumpkin, does not matter. Staying fit will allow you to enjoy life more fully and ultimately bring your self-confidence through the roof. That is compelty B.S. and is the problem with socity today. Do you realy blive that the look of your body leads to happyness? Hell no, self-confidence and happyness do not come from your weight or the look of your body but the acpentce of your curent body image. This is why there are super models who hate them selves and have no self esteam and exteramly over weight peoleop who love life. If you genticaly are a pumpikn and you try every day to strave your self and work out you may see some temraplery resotles at a very high cost. And no matter what you do you will allways go back to that pumpikn, so this confidence you talk about is short lived. The only ture happyness and self confienced in life comes form acpeting who you are and your postion in life, anything eltes is simpey temparey fullment with will lead to twice the pain down the road. Desire leads to suffering. And whonting to be somthing you are not is one of the greats desires there are and one that can never be fullfiled for long. Happnyess from such paths is meraly a temparly state and a illusesion that will lead to more suferung. |
Author: | Clayton [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
ok, i dont think you understand what im trying to say here, im not saying you have to weight that "ideal weight" or look a certain way, all i was trying to say in that little blurb was that, chances are, if you try and stay fit, or event just try to be fit, your probably going to have a lot of fun doing it, and it will probably lift your spirits. sure you might feel like s**t because of the way society looks at you, but if you can go out there, and try and get in shape, just try, you will most likely feel much, much better about themselves. Now for those of you wondering, I do know what I'm talking about, there was a person in my family struggling down this path. I'm not going to go any further than that, but thats FYI. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:01 am ] |
Post subject: | |
SuperFreak82 wrote: ok, i dont think you understand what im trying to say here, im not saying you have to weight that "ideal weight" or look a certain way, all i was trying to say in that little blurb was that, chances are, if you try and stay fit, or event just try to be fit, your probably going to have a lot of fun doing it, and it will probably lift your spirits.
No you are saying that poeleop have to do this and have to enjoy it. Simpley some peolepo don't enjoy it and don't care about staying fit and that is there choice. SuperFreak82 wrote: sure you might feel like s**t because of the way society looks at you, but if you can go out there, and try and get in shape, just try, you will most likely feel much, much better about themselves. This is not true at all, and if you read my last post you whould see in detail why. SuperFreak82 wrote: Now for those of you wondering, I do know what I'm talking about, there was a person in my family struggling down this path. I'm not going to go any further than that, but thats FYI. And do you realy think refuring to them like that and pushing them to chage there sevles to fit your excpations is realy going to help them in the long term? You blive the problem is that there are overweight peoleop in socity but in reality the problem is that you see thess peoleop as overweight and wrong. Simpely put the problem lies with you and your views and they do not have a problem in till they make it there problem. |
Author: | r.3volved [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:05 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Dan, is english your first language? It is very difficult to read your posts... 1. Obesity is an illness. Both physical and mental. Just the same as anerexia. The human body has developed over millenia with specific range of motion, strength, speed, etc. It was designed for specific tasks just as every other animal on the planet. There are many different body types, and obesity due to malnutrition, lack of exercise and general lazyness is bad for all of them. As human beings living in the 21st century, we ingest thousands of chemicals and byproducts everyday with pretty well everything that we eat. However, eating properly and exercising will help excrete those chemicals and enables your body to process fats, sugars and proteins. You talk as if starving yourself is the only way to lose weight...in reality, it's a great road to an early grave, and I'm sure you will lose weight...but losing the weight without gaining the muscle-mass is extremely bad for your body. 2. There is a difference between genetic obesity and self-enduced obesity. If you are already born heavy with overweight parents, your risk for heart problems, circulatory problems, respiratory problems (the list goes on) are already increased before you even have a chance to do anything about it. However a genetically large individual has a better chance of retaining a healthy lifestyle and remaining healthy, than someone who becomes obese due to lazyness. Their bodies are already genetically altered to deal with excess fats and large body mass and though it may be hard (sometimes impossible) for them to lose weight, they can remain healthier than those who binge and don't care. 3. Being overweight is nothing to be ashamed of...but being that lazy person who never wants to do anything except sit around and eat cheetos wasting their existence in front of a television set because they everything else takes too much effort...there's where the problem lies. You say that the only thing that counts is being happy with yourself...but can you honestly tell me that you could look in the mirror and love yourself, while knowing that you are slowly shortening your lifespan due to gluttony? Loving yourself and who you are, no matter what the situation is a major step towards enlightenment...however you will never truly love yourself without first knowing yourself (mind and body) and living up to your intended potential. Staying healthy is a chore. It does not come easy -- in this day-and-age nothing does. But pretending to be happy about yourself is not an equal trade-off to doing the proper work involved. You're only fooling yourself and masking your true feelings...and you only live for yourself. 4. Shouldn't admins know better than to lead a thread waaaaaay off topic? |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
[quote="r.3volved"]Dan, is english your first language? It is very difficult to read your posts... [/qoute] Apreantly puting the reason in my sig is not enoguht, tho i do not think you brougth this up as an honst question as much as a reason for not reading any more my points above and just ingoring them in your points. But no problem i have some time and will reapet my self. r.3volved wrote: 1. Obesity is an illness. Both physical and mental. Just the same as anerexia. The human body has developed over millenia with specific range of motion, strength, speed, etc. It was designed for specific tasks just as every other animal on the planet. There are many different body types, and obesity due to malnutrition, lack of exercise and general lazyness is bad for all of them. Was obesity mentioned any where in this topic? No. We where talking about peoleop being overweight. Witch is difrencet in that it is a average weight set mostly by socitys standeres. Now if we do whont to talk about obesity, shure it is a type of illness but since when did we force peoleop to take a cure they did not whont? If one choices to be lazzy, that is there choice. It may effect there health but it is there health and no one eltes. The only person whos job it is to deal with that whould be them and there doctor. It is not as if peoleop do not realises that weight a signfiacat amount and that they need you to infrom them of this. There are 10000s of things that are bad or dangures for your health. Evertyhing from rock climbing to smoking can kill you. Yet we do not see socity discimatane agisted rock climbers. And as with rock climbers it is the persons inducal choice to take that risk. The only exception is with peoleop who can not think for them selves. Shure there is such a thing as food adiction and over eating but as with all adactions the person has to whont help and ask for it. Simpley ostresing them from socity is not going to help and will infact advaerate the problem. r.3volved wrote: 2. There is a difference between genetic obesity and self-enduced obesity. If you are already born heavy with overweight parents, your risk for heart problems, circulatory problems, respiratory problems (the list goes on) are already increased before you even have a chance to do anything about it. However a genetically large individual has a better chance of retaining a healthy lifestyle and remaining healthy, than someone who becomes obese due to lazyness. Their bodies are already genetically altered to deal with excess fats and large body mass and though it may be hard (sometimes impossible) for them to lose weight, they can remain healthier than those who binge and don't care. I am allways admazied how peoleop can garb random facts out of unknow places during debates online. As far as i know there are no harden studys to suport any of that and if there are please link to them. Also if you look back at my coments about choice, they also apply here. You have the choice to be lazzy whether it is bad for your health or not and that consires only you (and maybe your doctor). r.3volved wrote: 3. Being overweight is nothing to be ashamed of...but being that lazy person who never wants to do anything except sit around and eat cheetos wasting their existence in front of a television set because they everything else takes too much effort...there's where the problem lies. You say that the only thing that counts is being happy with yourself...but can you honestly tell me that you could look in the mirror and love yourself, while knowing that you are slowly shortening your lifespan due to gluttony? I say that no matter what you look like or what your life is like if you can not stand in front of that mirror and love what you see you have a bigger problem then being lazzy. Also there is nothing wrong with being lazzy is that is what brings you joy in life. Apcectence on your self is one of the most impornt things in life and i whould galy live 10 years apceting my true self then 1000 trying to be what socity whonts and make the image in the mirror look like that. Being lazzy can be part of who you are and if it is fighting that will only cuase pain. Also trying to live longer is also a forum of deisers that will also lead to suffruing, the turth is every one dies. You need to acpect the fact that you are not going to live for ever and that your time should be spent in postive endivers and not vain atmpents to prolong then enbabled end. r.3volved wrote: Loving yourself and who you are, no matter what the situation is a major step towards enlightenment...however you will never truly love yourself without first knowing yourself (mind and body) and living up to your intended potential. Ones intended potential is not nessary phsyical, in fact i whould go as far to say that ones ture potential is never phsyical and allways lies within ones self. You have to realsies that your body is just a casing for your self and that is the self that one most come to know, the body is only a means for doing that. r.3volved wrote: Staying healthy is a chore. It does not come easy -- in this day-and-age nothing does. But pretending to be happy about yourself is not an equal trade-off to doing the proper work involved. You're only fooling yourself and masking your true feelings...and you only live for yourself. I whould say that tryign to make your image fit anothers is fooling yourself and acpectes that you are you no matter what the out side looks like and loveing that is the true happyness. r.3volved wrote: 4. Shouldn't admins know better than to lead a thread waaaaaay off topic? Have you read the name of this fourm? |
Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Being overweight has less to do with looks and how one feels about oneself, and more to do with health. I wouldn't necessarily count supermodels in "healthty" category either. How much is it worth for someone to be able to look in the mirror and tell himself that it's acceptable if his arteries are clogged or he has difficulty breathing? I guess what counts really is on the inside. |
Author: | r.3volved [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I apologize for the dyslexia Dan. I don't exactly pay attention to what sig belongs to whome, or really care what anyone's sig says at all to be honest with you. It seems that you base all your arguments off of Buddhist philosophy but fail to realise the views of those who believe otherwise. I'm not arguing against what you say, I'm simply giving you a look from the other side of the fense. No one can possibly know or think the same as anyone else in this world without having first observed and experienced everything exactly the same (No more and no less) up until that moment of thought. Everyone has their own views, whether they are right or wrong depends on the individual and only them. However there is still a balance. There is no good without bad. No light without dark. No happiness without sadness. Life is not suffering. Life is what you make of it. Life is experience. You sound like you enjoy philosophy quite a bit. May I suggest to you the book "The Physics of Conciousness". It's a great read and it sounds like you would enjoy it. Also you might like this page: www.spaceandmotion.com (read it as a philisophical view, not necessarily a classical physics view. |
Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I feel greatly relieved that I don't have to moderate Dan's posts in this forum. Those are some long posts, Dan. Though I did read a little bit. And I will contribute this, along the same lines as Mazer's post. Society does have an obligation to impose rules and regulations to improve the quality of life. That encompasses healthy living. For example, the government is obligated to ban all foods that contain trans-fats. Mazer wrote: I wouldn't necessarily count supermodels in "healthty" category either. A good point. And if not for the quotation marks, I wouldn't even have noticed. |
Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Just in case you've found some meaning I hadn't intended, that should read: Quote: I wouldn't necessarily count supermodels in the "healthy" category either. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: Being overweight has less to do with looks and how one feels about oneself, and more to do with health. I wouldn't necessarily count supermodels in "healthty" category either. How much is it worth for someone to be able to look in the mirror and tell himself that it's acceptable if his arteries are clogged or he has difficulty breathing? I guess what counts really is on the inside.
My point is that ones health is ones relsobility not the school systems and that yes what counts is on the inside. r.3volved wrote: It seems that you base all your arguments off of Buddhist philosophy but fail to realise the views of those who believe otherwise. Aucatly they are based on serveral schools of physoicshy incuding buddhist, jainist, jungining and abulste realisume. They are deftaly more to the easter worlds way of thinking for shure and i do realises others belive otherwise but my posts are my option and thous is why we have debates and it is not just one person posts Also i whould just like to say that althougth i may sound negtieve to other posters during debates i noramly do not mean to be, i am just pashint about what i blive. I in no way whont every in the world to chage to my view point but rather to open minds about non wester views of the world. I am very gald that you and other peoleop choice to debate me openly and enjoy it very much and your points are vaild. It all comes down to your view on life as you hinted on. Cervantes wrote: Society does have an obligation to impose rules and regulations to improve the quality of life. That encompasses healthy living. For example, the government is obligated to ban all foods that contain trans-fats. This is a very good point, the goverment dose have the obglicaiton to protect the well being of it's citzentes. However this realy gets in to another debate as to how far the goverment should go to do it before they desotry social libreaitys and peoleops rights. In this case i whould say it is soceitys respoblity to offer programs and health care for peoleop who choice to fight there over eating problems and whont to become more phsycail active. For example as i mentioned befor i think insted of gym being mandtory in high school a health class should be that purely teachs about healthy eating, actviity and othe health matters. As for the goverment conrol of food it is an exteramly compicated matter and whould requre much posting that no one whonts to read |
Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
When I said the thing about what matters is inside, I meant it literally. As for gym in school, I don't see how it hurts anyone. I hated gym: I was the nerd with his shirt tucked into his pants, couldn't throw worth crap, came in last for every race, struck out every time I was at bat, and last pick every time (and I'll be honest, high school wasn't a huge improvement either). Ego aside, gym did a world of good for me. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: When I said the thing about what matters is inside, I meant it literally. As for gym in school, I don't see how it hurts anyone. I hated gym: I was the nerd with his shirt tucked into his pants, couldn't throw worth crap, came in last for every race, struck out every time I was at bat, and last pick every time (and I'll be honest, high school wasn't a huge improvement either). Ego aside, gym did a world of good for me.
Then you whould be one of the few lucky ones. In reality hating gym is going to give the average "nerd" a bad view of sports and healthy living. If it was thought in a more consrtuive maner and postive way that they enjoyed you whould be more likey to do such activerys threw out the rest of your life. Also the idea of forcing some one to take a corse that is marked based on your physical ablity is aucatly illgeal and i have no idea how they get away with it. (my guse is that the criumelm says not to mark them based on this but they do any way. at least at the school i whent to). |
Author: | Mazer [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If you were marked based on physical ability someone needs to talk with your teacher. Some people are good at sports, other people sucked. Marks were supposed to be based on participation, but I guess that can vary based on whether the teacher is a jerk. |
Author: | Dan [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: If you were marked based on physical ability someone needs to talk with your teacher. Some people are good at sports, other people sucked. Marks were supposed to be based on participation, but I guess that can vary based on whether the teacher is a jerk.
Indeed, my exam was a physical exam marked soley on your perforce in a number of physical actives such as lefting weights and how fast you can run around a track. Tho even if this was not the case, i still blive studes should be able to pick between gym and a health cores that could also have partical examples like group actviitys. |
Author: | Andy [ Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: When I said the thing about what matters is inside, I meant it literally. As for gym in school, I don't see how it hurts anyone. I hated gym: I was the nerd with his shirt tucked into his pants, couldn't throw worth crap, came in last for every race, struck out every time I was at bat, and last pick every time (and I'll be honest, high school wasn't a huge improvement either). Ego aside, gym did a world of good for me.
before i knew tom was the school football star, i though the COUTSOS cheer was for you... lol jk |