My intro on free-wheeling thoughts about coaching absence and important attachments, invisibly used. An exercise on thrashing out. It may come down to NY fashion. The runway has always had a sort of certain fascination probing organic patterns. For instance, take the pragmatic introduction of pockets as an outgrowth...what do you put in them? How are they shown? In usage, are there secondary associations that direct toward or away from certain flows? Can they be invisible keys that unlock the turbulence of streams and what floats upon them? What is the current channel and opposing cross flow of the mimic? Fly-fisherman need not apply...but then, they always come up, with their sly grin, that certain Velcro attachments (above each pocket) have adornments that represents the current directory (stream specific, of course) of the last five year mayfly species of this month's hatch. See what I mean? Are you currently wearing items that have pockets? Are they filled? Are they ever filled...I mean all of them? Perhaps, a particular one? OK, where is this going? A premise...all players (generally) have no pockets. All coaches have wares that have them. But what if you have certain placements of pockets that are visible (the fly-fisherman) which are ignored, but have active adornments (flies adapting toward all stages of lifestyles) pinned to the proper reward of selective activity patterns. Who and by what fashion is picked and what is ignored? Is there a natural selection (as in culture) that the picker must obey their ingrained natural hatch pattern? Who has the pockets...the administrators. Those that have pockets and are not used (players), but do they have adornments? Invisible pockets, but yet filled as a historic and cultural hatch pattern? What influence has a chain of being?