brianman wrote:
f I had a theory that all girls have two belly buttons and all boys have one,
AND pictures showed that Girls have one and boys have two...
IS THAT "semantics"???
Not a very good analogy: what are you are doing in your audio commentary is no different than insisting that a car be called a "six-wheeler" instead of a "four-wheeler" because you choose to count the spare and the steering wheel. To paraphrase you: how can you call a car a four-wheeler when pictures show that it has six? I would call that semantics. Whether it is a "six-wheeler" or a "four-wheeler", It is still a car.
As you acknowledged on your audio, and then totally ignore, Hardy chose to designate a swing with Toms' characteristics (shallow shoulder plane, steeper arm plane) as "two-plane". Looking at it differently, you call it one plane. Big deal. It is still the same swing. And, at the top, the arms are STILL on a distinctly steeper plane than the shoulders. Just because you choose to ignore Hardy's definition in favor of your own in no way disproves his theory; in fact, it doesn't address his theory at all!
Setting aside the semantics, to me the significance of Hardy's work is the conclusion that the different styles of swinging (call them the "shoulders/left arm on a similar plane at the top" swing and the "left arm on a distinctly steeper plane than the shoulders at the top" swing) is that there are different sets of fundamentals that apply to each (as well as the corrollary, that there are fundamentals from one style that don't work with the other). In his book, he sets out the fundamentals required by each style. An assessment of these elements of Hardy's theory would be to me much more substantive and relevant than your "what I call one-plane, he calls two (and, oh, by the way, that's because he is looking at the relationship of the left arm and the shoulders at the top of the swing and I'm looking at something else)" commentary.
