RING TAW (aka RINGER, RINGO ) - A one foot ring is drawn inside of a ten foot ring. Each player puts in a number of 5/8" marbles so that there is about a dozen marbles in the smaller ring. At the National Marble Tournament, thirteen marbles supplied by the organizers are arranged in a cross at the center of the ring and there is no one foot ring. Shooting order is determined by 'lagging', shooting to see who can get closest to a designated line. The first player, starting outside the ten foot circle, attempts to thumb his or her 'taw' (a 3/4" shooting marble) to knock a target marble out of the large ring while keeping the taw inside the ring. If he or she succeeds, he or she shoots again from where the taw stopped. 'Sticking' or shooting seven consecutive marbles out of the ring and winning the game without giving an opponent a turn is usually good for two days of playground bragging rights. If the player fails to knock a target marble out of the ring, or his or her taw leaves the ring, his or her turn is over and next player takes his or her turn.
At the National Marble Tournament, if your taw is in the ring at the end of your turn, you must remove it. In informal games, if your taw is in the ring, it becomes a legitimate target and any player who hits it out collects a forfeit from you. Players should agree in advance whether to use this rule. Play alternates until one player has knocked a majority of the marbles out of the ring. The process of picking the best possible position for starting is referred to as 'taking rounders'.
About Me
- aRBee
- United States
- Why Marbles My 1st blog attempt Was an answer to a promise I made to my eldest son when I handed him a jar full of marbles. The marbles were from a collection saved by my mother over the years of my childhood, and I must admit that if left to me I would have already lost all of my marbles. My son asked if I could jot down some of the ways these marbles were used I told him I would write down as much as I could remember and send it to him later. I am the supreme procrastinator of all time which resulted in him sending me a reminder at which time he promised not to lose my marbles and I reassured him that I would get busy and tell him and his children how the beautiful round bits of glass and minerals were used for amusement and competition. My Response2 blog arose out of frustration with the attitudes and lack of respect for our country, our traditional ethics, and educational system. Rons Lyrics and Poetry started just because my scribbles needed a place to rest.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Games of Marbles..Rolley, Ringer
Rolley, what?
What’s rolley hole? Most people are familiar with ringer, which pits one player against another in a marbles ring. Rolley hole is a team sport played on a rectangular, groomed dirt marble yard, 40 feet long by 20 feet wide, with three marble-size holes positioned along a center line about eight feet apart. Incorporating elements of golf, pool and croquet, it combines strategy and dead-on aim as one two-person team competes against another. The object is for each team to move the marbles around the field, hitting three holes in succession, repeated three times. Knocking an opponent’s marble away from a hole is part of the strategy, and spanning – moving a marble the length of your hand – is permitted. To stop a marble short, players put English (backspin) on it.
Origins of the game point to immigrants from the British Isles. Or perhaps it’s even more indigenous as the Cherokee of North Carolina today play a game similar to rolley hole. Although played on a much grander scale with a 200-foot-long course and billiard balls in lieu of marbles, the rules and strategies are closely linked. A developing body of lore regarding the roots of the game adds to the mystery and speculation. For example, oral history of the Tennessee game predates the Civil War, and large round game stones have been found throughout the state at 1,000-year-old burial sites.
What’s rolley hole? Most people are familiar with ringer, which pits one player against another in a marbles ring. Rolley hole is a team sport played on a rectangular, groomed dirt marble yard, 40 feet long by 20 feet wide, with three marble-size holes positioned along a center line about eight feet apart. Incorporating elements of golf, pool and croquet, it combines strategy and dead-on aim as one two-person team competes against another. The object is for each team to move the marbles around the field, hitting three holes in succession, repeated three times. Knocking an opponent’s marble away from a hole is part of the strategy, and spanning – moving a marble the length of your hand – is permitted. To stop a marble short, players put English (backspin) on it.
Origins of the game point to immigrants from the British Isles. Or perhaps it’s even more indigenous as the Cherokee of North Carolina today play a game similar to rolley hole. Although played on a much grander scale with a 200-foot-long course and billiard balls in lieu of marbles, the rules and strategies are closely linked. A developing body of lore regarding the roots of the game adds to the mystery and speculation. For example, oral history of the Tennessee game predates the Civil War, and large round game stones have been found throughout the state at 1,000-year-old burial sites.
ABORTION?
Today it has really struck me as to just how many in our country view abortion as a freedom. It is viewed as a right of womanhood to disallow the birth of a child. Yet the majority of Americans abhor the deaths of humans in any other form. I wondered how my grandchildren and their children would internalize this subject. I decided to incorporate my thoughts on the subject into a book that I am writing, a sort of letter to my children called “Don’t Lose My Marbles”.
This subject encompasses all varieties of underlying beliefs and feelings, as well as creating new moral and ethical dilemmas for our society and as individuals. Abortion has given rise to both political and religious groups on both sides of the issue. Here are my thoughts and my beliefs on the subject and they are directed, as I mentioned, to my family. If any of the rest of my extended family, “mankind” wishes to think along my path you are welcome. If not, at least keep an open mind.
In 1973 our Supreme Court legalized the practice of abortion based on the plaintiff’s plea to abort her unborn child due to her perceived inability to provide for that child. The other portion of the decision came as part and parcel of her acquisition of an illegal abortion which in general has been proven to be quite unsafe for the mother of the aborted child. The argument used by her attorneys was that a woman’s right to privacy includes the right for her to choose to bear a child to birth or not. McCorvey wrote that she had "wanted to terminate my pregnancy because of the economic hardship which my pregnancy entailed, and because of the social stigma attached to the bearing of illegitimate children in our society." Since she could not afford to travel to another state for a legal abortion, she said: "I fear that my very life would be endangered if I submitted to an abortion which I could afford."This subject has been hashed over and rehashed millions of times, and that is not an exaggeration. I can’t really imagine that it has not been mulled over by at least half of those who have chosen to terminate their pregnancy. The basic questions are simple, it is the definitions that come into play and increase the complexity.
Our society has increasingly become “me “orientated over the last century and our ethical moral sensitivities have adjusted accordingly. This is not unusual and is something that has occurred many times over the course of history. Our society is no different. The question will eventually boil down to who and what comprises human decency towards another human, and at what point does the human animal come into being. Humans as societies have, for the most part, stood against the unjustified taking of another human life. The terms of justification for that action have fluctuated during the course of history but have generally tended toward the restrictions of such justification, i.e. the elimination of death penalties as a form of penalty for certain acts. The political and societal position against nation’s acts of war against each other is another example. It seems that our position regarding abortion has taken a turn against the trending tendency of protecting life. The subject also encroaches into areas of education, legality, personal choices, physical and mental health as well as what is passed on to our children.
I have many good friends and acquaintances with all facets of agreement and disagreement of how to deal with this subject. It is one of the most critical underlying subjects facing our society today. I don’t see that changing soon. Our current political and law making factions tend to go with the easy choice of agreeing with those that can make noise and against those who are unable to speak because of their lack of formation inside the womb of their mothers. Abortion is a subject we each need to make a choice on as individuals; a choice that defines us as a person and jointly as a society. There is no other subject since the inception of time that is more critical to our species with the possible exception of war as a method of total extinction. There has never been, in the course of humanity, any scourge or war inflicting the number of casualties equal to that caused by abortion. That some may be justified to insure the safety and life of the mother is a given, but allowed as a matter just for choice is morally corrupt. I don’t state that as a Christian, I state that as a human being.
Our nation today is more polarized on more subjects than at any time I can remember in my life. I have tried to understand both those I agree with and those I don’t. I have to admit failure in many instances. I do not understand how someone can disagree with violence to protect the life of their neighbor if force equals force. I do not understand how any faction of a society can stand against their nation’s history, and I certainly can’t understand the taking of an innocent life as justified because of inconvenience.
I do understand that abortions have been taking place for most of our history, and that most of those prior to the twentieth century were extremely dangerous to the childbearing mothers. Something had to change in that regard. There is no way the numbers involved prior to “RvW” were anywhere in proximity to the numbers that have occurred since.
We as a society have taken a role and position of total permissiveness sexually and that has driven the numbers of abortions to the high numbers we now see. This permissiveness is exacerbated in our educational system by trying to treat the symptom of pregnancy as a matter of prevention rather than a matter of responsibility that should be part of parenting. As those children move into young adulthood choosing sex as a recreational activity because they have the ability and the right to do whatever is also than a matter of responsibility that should have been taught them by their parents as a part of parenting responsibilities. Our children need to be taught that it is not ok to do everything and that the things they do have consequences. If you have sex when you can’t afford to give up your life for your children’s food, clothing and lodging, don’t have sex. It’s not ok just because you can take time off school to have an abortion and no one will be the wiser. At some point in time the reality of your action will come back to slap your psyche. The taking of your child’s life will be a hurt that bandages can’t cure for you. If you decide to keep the child your young life will never be the same. The loss of freedom that having a child while you are a child is monumental and no matter how much you love your new baby, resentment is right around some dirty diaper or some missed dance or party. Having a child is a responsibility that makes having sex a responsibility. Having sex just this one time, with or without protection, is like eating one piece of candy it’s not going to happen that way. We could eliminate a good portion of unnecessary abortions by the reinstatement teaching responsibility to both parents and children. The fact that our society accepts termination of life as an alternative form of contraception is a terminal sickness that should not be condoned by any of us. If you have a unwanted child inside your body give it to someone who cares. Adoptions are a much better solution and it gives your child a chance at greatness and the new parents an opportunity for unimaginable love.
There was a time in my life when I was not in solid belief regarding God and His Son Jesus Christ and during this lapse I considered the abortion of one of my children. It was a decision based on not wanting to ruin a relationship with another of my children by having to share love with two rather than one. I am happy to say that the birth came to fruition, and because of that the world is a richer place. I also found out that love is an unlimited, boundless blessing from an all understanding God.
This subject encompasses all varieties of underlying beliefs and feelings, as well as creating new moral and ethical dilemmas for our society and as individuals. Abortion has given rise to both political and religious groups on both sides of the issue. Here are my thoughts and my beliefs on the subject and they are directed, as I mentioned, to my family. If any of the rest of my extended family, “mankind” wishes to think along my path you are welcome. If not, at least keep an open mind.
In 1973 our Supreme Court legalized the practice of abortion based on the plaintiff’s plea to abort her unborn child due to her perceived inability to provide for that child. The other portion of the decision came as part and parcel of her acquisition of an illegal abortion which in general has been proven to be quite unsafe for the mother of the aborted child. The argument used by her attorneys was that a woman’s right to privacy includes the right for her to choose to bear a child to birth or not. McCorvey wrote that she had "wanted to terminate my pregnancy because of the economic hardship which my pregnancy entailed, and because of the social stigma attached to the bearing of illegitimate children in our society." Since she could not afford to travel to another state for a legal abortion, she said: "I fear that my very life would be endangered if I submitted to an abortion which I could afford."This subject has been hashed over and rehashed millions of times, and that is not an exaggeration. I can’t really imagine that it has not been mulled over by at least half of those who have chosen to terminate their pregnancy. The basic questions are simple, it is the definitions that come into play and increase the complexity.
Our society has increasingly become “me “orientated over the last century and our ethical moral sensitivities have adjusted accordingly. This is not unusual and is something that has occurred many times over the course of history. Our society is no different. The question will eventually boil down to who and what comprises human decency towards another human, and at what point does the human animal come into being. Humans as societies have, for the most part, stood against the unjustified taking of another human life. The terms of justification for that action have fluctuated during the course of history but have generally tended toward the restrictions of such justification, i.e. the elimination of death penalties as a form of penalty for certain acts. The political and societal position against nation’s acts of war against each other is another example. It seems that our position regarding abortion has taken a turn against the trending tendency of protecting life. The subject also encroaches into areas of education, legality, personal choices, physical and mental health as well as what is passed on to our children.
I have many good friends and acquaintances with all facets of agreement and disagreement of how to deal with this subject. It is one of the most critical underlying subjects facing our society today. I don’t see that changing soon. Our current political and law making factions tend to go with the easy choice of agreeing with those that can make noise and against those who are unable to speak because of their lack of formation inside the womb of their mothers. Abortion is a subject we each need to make a choice on as individuals; a choice that defines us as a person and jointly as a society. There is no other subject since the inception of time that is more critical to our species with the possible exception of war as a method of total extinction. There has never been, in the course of humanity, any scourge or war inflicting the number of casualties equal to that caused by abortion. That some may be justified to insure the safety and life of the mother is a given, but allowed as a matter just for choice is morally corrupt. I don’t state that as a Christian, I state that as a human being.
Our nation today is more polarized on more subjects than at any time I can remember in my life. I have tried to understand both those I agree with and those I don’t. I have to admit failure in many instances. I do not understand how someone can disagree with violence to protect the life of their neighbor if force equals force. I do not understand how any faction of a society can stand against their nation’s history, and I certainly can’t understand the taking of an innocent life as justified because of inconvenience.
I do understand that abortions have been taking place for most of our history, and that most of those prior to the twentieth century were extremely dangerous to the childbearing mothers. Something had to change in that regard. There is no way the numbers involved prior to “RvW” were anywhere in proximity to the numbers that have occurred since.
We as a society have taken a role and position of total permissiveness sexually and that has driven the numbers of abortions to the high numbers we now see. This permissiveness is exacerbated in our educational system by trying to treat the symptom of pregnancy as a matter of prevention rather than a matter of responsibility that should be part of parenting. As those children move into young adulthood choosing sex as a recreational activity because they have the ability and the right to do whatever is also than a matter of responsibility that should have been taught them by their parents as a part of parenting responsibilities. Our children need to be taught that it is not ok to do everything and that the things they do have consequences. If you have sex when you can’t afford to give up your life for your children’s food, clothing and lodging, don’t have sex. It’s not ok just because you can take time off school to have an abortion and no one will be the wiser. At some point in time the reality of your action will come back to slap your psyche. The taking of your child’s life will be a hurt that bandages can’t cure for you. If you decide to keep the child your young life will never be the same. The loss of freedom that having a child while you are a child is monumental and no matter how much you love your new baby, resentment is right around some dirty diaper or some missed dance or party. Having a child is a responsibility that makes having sex a responsibility. Having sex just this one time, with or without protection, is like eating one piece of candy it’s not going to happen that way. We could eliminate a good portion of unnecessary abortions by the reinstatement teaching responsibility to both parents and children. The fact that our society accepts termination of life as an alternative form of contraception is a terminal sickness that should not be condoned by any of us. If you have a unwanted child inside your body give it to someone who cares. Adoptions are a much better solution and it gives your child a chance at greatness and the new parents an opportunity for unimaginable love.
There was a time in my life when I was not in solid belief regarding God and His Son Jesus Christ and during this lapse I considered the abortion of one of my children. It was a decision based on not wanting to ruin a relationship with another of my children by having to share love with two rather than one. I am happy to say that the birth came to fruition, and because of that the world is a richer place. I also found out that love is an unlimited, boundless blessing from an all understanding God.
About believe or not.
IS THERE, OR ISN’T THERE A GOD.
Historically man has always put someone or something in that position: in order to put reason to that which he does not understand, or to gain power and influence. The reality of Gods existence has been a debatable subject, an existence which can neither be confirmed nor denied through empirical scientific evidence. This has been a contentious debate and often times a bloody one due to the power factor and mans interpretation of Gods favor. Mans self-created gods have included all component s of nature and it anomalies, rulers, and gifted individuals. Lately man himself has been included in the list of that type of god. The gods of nature have been scientifically proven to be results rather than causal factors in our world, although exhibiting power, uncontrollable by man in many cases, they do not have the ability to create out of nothing, or to reason.
Those who contend there is no God are able to stand on the current “fact” that Gods existence cannot be supported by scientific means, therefore there is no God. I put the word fact in “ “ because that which is unproven is not fact but is only theory. If one is to use theory as a basis for guiding himself through life, with a god, without a god, or with God, one does so merely on the basis of faith, self gratification or personal experience. God’s place in one’s life is a very personal and individual experience and the paths to accepting His (masc. in historical use only) existence can be quite unique. My own personal position regarding Gods existence is based on personal experiences which have in turn created faith.
Historically man has always put someone or something in that position: in order to put reason to that which he does not understand, or to gain power and influence. The reality of Gods existence has been a debatable subject, an existence which can neither be confirmed nor denied through empirical scientific evidence. This has been a contentious debate and often times a bloody one due to the power factor and mans interpretation of Gods favor. Mans self-created gods have included all component s of nature and it anomalies, rulers, and gifted individuals. Lately man himself has been included in the list of that type of god. The gods of nature have been scientifically proven to be results rather than causal factors in our world, although exhibiting power, uncontrollable by man in many cases, they do not have the ability to create out of nothing, or to reason.
Those who contend there is no God are able to stand on the current “fact” that Gods existence cannot be supported by scientific means, therefore there is no God. I put the word fact in “ “ because that which is unproven is not fact but is only theory. If one is to use theory as a basis for guiding himself through life, with a god, without a god, or with God, one does so merely on the basis of faith, self gratification or personal experience. God’s place in one’s life is a very personal and individual experience and the paths to accepting His (masc. in historical use only) existence can be quite unique. My own personal position regarding Gods existence is based on personal experiences which have in turn created faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)