| Re: There is no pitching without catching? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Pop FlyPop Fly Date: Aug 11, 2008 18:46
On Aug 11, 12:02Â pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:> Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art
> (this NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching".
> Is this  aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no
> catching withour pitching"?
Typo -- did you mean "there is no catching with our pitching"? Which
would explain why baseball was never your game.
Seriously, you're right. Also it should be, "Can't eat your cake and
have it too."
> This question may  seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
> when it is applied to the reality  that 'emission does not require
> reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
> notwithstanding!).
Coitus interruptus notwithstanding?
| 
