3 ms·
I strongly disagree with this point: > If you pass anybody, you are not walking slowly enough for it to be “taking a walk.” There are people around who walk p
by frobozz 16y ago
I strongly disagree with this point:
> If you pass anybody, you are not walking slowly enough for it to be “taking a walk.”
There are people around who walk painfully slowly. When I go for a walk, I let my legs swing at a natural cadence, with my natural stride length. If I have to change that, to ensure I don't overtake some dawdler, it places a stupidly unnecessary restriction on the definition of "taking a walk". IMO, it removes some of the idleness from it if you have to actually think about how you are walking.
- infinite8s 16y agoI think he was trying to say that "speed walking" is not the same as taking a walk.
- frobozz 16y agoI don't see where you get that idea, because it isn't what he said. What he said was "If you pass anybody, you are not walking slowly enough for it to be “taking a walk.”" i.e. You can only be classed as "taking a walk", if you are the slowest person around, or if the only people slower than you are far enough away that you won't catch them up. This makes it extremely difficult to take a walk, particularly if you start anywhere near an old people's home, or a primary school, or an area of town where lost tourists peer down each side street in search of a landmark. Note that this is in the paragraph that declares "taking a walk" to be "not difficult". Taking a walk by my definition - walking at my body's natural pace, aiming for nowhere in particular - is easy. His definition makes it very difficult indeed.