The Big Fat Table on the Legs ControversyThis is how a simple thing like keeping your legs on the table can blow out of proportion. True Story.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$All_StudentsThis is my last and final warning for indiscipline in the lab. I have told many of you many times that sitting in the lab with your legs up, playing music loudly etc. is not applicable. This a lab and not a hostel room.I have had enough. Now if I see any instance of indiscipline, I will throw the student out.Please help maintain a decorum in the lab.$Professor---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sir,The ban on music is understandable, since it disturbs others. But could you please explain the rationale behind the ban on sitting with our legs up? Unless the body is allowed a reasonable amount of freedom, how can the mind be expected to function freely?$Student---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $Facad,I dont understand this theory. Can you have a word with your batch?I am of the opinion that discipline in freedom helps more than unrestricted freedom. I dont see why some one MUST sit with legs up on the table to think.Thanks and regards,$Professor---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $Student,Can you please give a scientific explanation of Unless the body is allowed a reasonable amount of freedom, how can the mind be expected to function freely? What is scientifically a reasonable amount of freedom? Im sure youve heard of Stephen Hawking, havent you?Just to keep spam levels low, you can respond only to me. I will pass on the gist of your scientific explanation to all concerned.Best wishes,$Facad---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $Facad,I believe that Stephen Hawking has made great contributions to science in spite of his disability and not because of it. That said, I do not have concrete scientific evidence to support my claim, only strong intuition. Most corporate offices who provide nice offices and all sorts of physical comforts to their employees probably share my intuition.I never said that we MUST sit with legs on the table to think. Nor did I challenge Prof. $Professor ban. I merely inquired about the rationale behind the ban. If Prof. $Professor feels that we do not need to know this, I am okay with it.$Student---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $StudentNobody claimed that physical discomfort leads the mind to work feely, so whats the point of your statement: in spite of his disability and not because of it? I dont see the relevance of this at all. Whom are your countering with this argument?If I understand things right, it was actually you who claimed that the mind cannot be expected to work freely without reasonable freedom of the body, when all that Prof. $Professor had requested was to refrain from putting your legs up on the table during lab hours. Stephen Hawkings case proves that if wants, even without reasonable amount of freedom for the body, the mind can be expected to function freely and much beyond. There are lots of other such examples, and Im sure you know that too. Can we just stay focussed on some justification of your claim instead of trying to put words in others mouth (like your in spite of and not because of statement). It doesnt appear that your question had any genuine intent behind it perhaps you were simply trying to be provocative. You dont have any scientific evidence but we have evidence to the contrary. Either back up your claims properly or accept that it was a loose statement.Regarding what happens in corporate offices, theres something called ergonomics and occupational safety. Thats what corporates are primarily worried about not about space to put your legs up. Can you establish that putting legs up on the table is recommended by any ergonomic expert or by any norm of occupational safety? I seriously doubt. Within ones own cubicle/office or in informal meetings, one is certainly free to put their legs up on tables, but if a cubicle or space is shared, and if another occupant objects, good corporate etiquette demands that one respects others sentiments. So whats the point you are trying to prove? It does look like you make sweeping statements without caring about whether they can really be backed up by anything substantial.Speaking of corporate culture, how many boardroom meetings happen with legs put up on tables? Im sure a lot of freedom of the mind is necessary to come up with crucial boardroom decisions. How many IIT students would put up their legs on the table when appearing for job interviews? Isnt the mind expected to function freely in such interviews?I dont really have a problem if you want to put your legs or whatever up on the table when you are thinking, but if this is in a shared space, and another person has a problem with it, basic professional etiquette demands you respect others sentiments. Instead of doing that, you seem to be trying to come up with some wild justification of why it is essential to engage in such acts for the mind to work freely. When countered, you seem to be putting words in others mouth (like the in spite of not because of argument). Thats where the real problem is.So, either you provide proper justification for your statement, or accept that it was loose and cant be used as justification for putting up ones legs or whatever on a table in a shared space when somebody else is not comfortable with this.Hope this helps.$Facad---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $FacadThis news article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/61870...) links bad posture to bad things, and though it does not speak about legs on table specifically, it does stress upon the importance of a comfortable posture.But that is not the point. It never was. When a ban is enforced, the onus is upon the ban-issuing authority to prove that the ban causes good and not upon others that it causes harm. This is because a ban, by its very definition, curbs certain freedom, and this is an implicit harm. The debate was on freedom and not on the benefits of keeping legs on the table.I get from your mail that the only reason for Prof. $Professor ban is that he is not comfortable with this. That is a fair enough reason, and I am satisfied. This shall be my last mail on the subject, as I believe the issue has already been blown out of proportion, and I do not wish to bug you further on a relatively trivial issue.Thanks a lot for your time and patience.$Student---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear $StudentNot surprisingly, you have evaded the basic question of scientific evidence that the mind cannot be expected to function freely unless there is reasonable freedom of the body, where the reasonable freedom that was supposedly being taken away was to have your legs up on the table while sitting. I hope you have actually read the BBC article that you pointed to it actually asks for your legs to be pointing down and not up on the table while sitting.Its convenient to say that something was not the point, and something was blown out of proportions and what not, when you try to pose heavy-sounding questions to a relatively innocuous request, and then cant show any substance behind those questions. Its just that others can see through all of this.$Facad