| |
Main
Date: 17 Sep 2006 05:28:27
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Tough round today..
|
Played the Ridge course and Northview today; where the Greater Vancouver
Open/Air Canada Championship was played.
We only played from the blue tees (6475 yards) but the best score we
could muster was a 91. Of course, the slope is 132 (rating 70.5).
I started off swinging well, but sort of lost it for most of the back
nine. And I made precisely one putt of any length (for birdie,
thankfully); the greens were tough.
It's not just the putting, but the chipping around the greens that
becomes so difficult. I only got up and down a couple of times, I think.
After that, I'll happily go play a course where the greens are only
rolling 8 or 9.
Anyway. Just venting.
The company was good: my brother, The Cuz, my cousin Keith, and another
buddy of ours (not a buddy of my cousin's so much, more a buddy of Cuz,
my brother. <g >), the course was beautiful and the weather most
cooperative.
I'd just like 8 or 9 strokes back...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:05:26
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Tough round today..
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:28:27 +0000, Alan Baker wrote:
> After that, I'll happily go play a course where the greens are only
> rolling 8 or 9.
I hear ya. On slow greens you can just pound it at the hole and not worry
too much about the break. You never have to worry about going off the
green if you get above the hole, or playing 6' break on a 6' putt. The
worst are courses with really undulated greens that are sped up to the
point that they border on unplayable. I don't mind wavy or fast greens,
but not both at once.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:03:25
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
--------------4030FE0E0DEEC08EE91DEE57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>
> : At the end of the day though, there are always those people who
> : like to make more sensitive people "bleed". And they are what
> : they are, and most people know the score.
>
> Ya know, Rob, you've never met me. You don't really know what
> motivates me. And here you are passing judgment on me, if I'm
> reading you correctly. I'm reminded a bit of glass houses and
> stone throwing.
>
> I'm not going to rerun my list of reasons to dislike Eric yet
> again -- I think he has posted plenty enough lately for people
> to make up their own minds. But I will reiterate again that it's
> his unrepentant racism that bothers me most. If we're judged by
> the company we keep, that item turn out to be a bit of a problem
> for you.
>
I'll respond to you and Randy in one shot. First to you:
Eric provides service to people of various races every day. We are
talking about direct, person to person interactions. No way he is going
to acheive any sort of responsible position doing such a thing if he
cannot tolerate people of other races. Of course this is a statement
based on what he actually does, not what you think of what he says. Eric
also provides his free time and professional services to people of all
races in need as charity. List out how much Eric has helped people of
races other than his own and list the same for you and we may see who
the real racist is. What you say aside, the real proof of a person is
what they do.
As for Randy, what I have seen here is people attack Eric, and Eric
over-respond. Yes, he over reacts, and that's what "they" like to see.
He is easy to wound and he will bleed all over the place. All you do is
re-enforce my point. I am, of course, offering up my opinion based on my
experience. I have never seen Eric really go after someone like certain
people go after Eric, constantly at him, year after year. Eric does not,
for example, constantly post about you, digging up old posts you have
made and jumping into virtually any thread you start. Some people do
that to Eric though. If you don't like him, leave him alone.
--------------4030FE0E0DEEC08EE91DEE57
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >
<p >Chris Bellomy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote:
<p >: At the end of the day though, there are always those people who
<br >: like to make more sensitive people "bleed". And they are what
<br >: they are, and most people know the score.
<p >Ya know, Rob, you've never met me. You don't really know what
<br >motivates me. And here you are passing judgment on me, if I'm
<br >reading you correctly. I'm reminded a bit of glass houses and
<br >stone throwing.
<p >I'm not going to rerun my list of reasons to dislike Eric yet
<br >again -- I think he has posted plenty enough lately for people
<br >to make up their own minds. But I will reiterate again that it's
<br >his unrepentant racism that bothers me most. If we're judged by
<br >the company we keep, that item turn out to be a bit of a problem
<br >for you.
<br ><a href="http://clist.org/"></a> </blockquote>
I'll respond to you and Randy in one shot. First to you:
<p >Eric provides service to people of various races every day. We are talking
about direct, person to person interactions. No way he is going to acheive
any sort of responsible position doing such a thing if he cannot tolerate
people of other races. Of course this is a statement based on what he actually
does, not what you think of what he says. Eric also provides his free time
and professional services to people of all races in need as charity. List
out how much Eric has helped people of races other than his own and list
the same for you and we may see who the real racist is. What you say aside,
the real proof of a person is what they do.
<p >As for Randy, what I have seen here is people attack Eric, and Eric
over-respond. Yes, he over reacts, and that's what "they" like to see.
He is easy to wound and he will bleed all over the place. All you do is
re-enforce my point. I am, of course, offering up my opinion based on my
experience. I have never seen Eric really go after someone like certain
people go after Eric, constantly at him, year after year. Eric does not,
for example, constantly post about you, digging up old posts you have made
and jumping into virtually any thread you start. Some people do that to
Eric though. If you don't like him, leave him alone.
<br > </html>
--------------4030FE0E0DEEC08EE91DEE57--
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 12:28:19
From: Buford Ressup
Subject: Re: Wie - the new Kournikova
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:27:02 -0700, Big_Fan wrote:
>
> Buford Ressup wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:14:29 -0700, Big_Fan wrote:
>> >
>> > I forgot to mention, the Golfweek/Sagarin rankings don't list Wie because
>> > she's only played in seven women's tournaments. The leader in those
>> > rankings is Sorenstam, with a 68.51 rating. Wie's would be 67.83 if she
>> > had enough tourneys played. Since she plays on the toughest fields, I
>> > think that reflects accurately how good of a player she is. She just isn't
>> > a finisher yet, unlike Sorenstam. Other than Annika, I believe you can
>> > make a case for Wie being the #2 player in the world the last two years.
>>
>> Right. I'm sure Annika Sorenstam, Lorena Ochoa, and Karrie Webb are all
>> bitterly jealous of Michelle's handful of near-misses. Good thing all
>> three have actually won many tournaments, several majors among them, in
>> the last two years to help them past the emotional pain of not being as
>> good as Wie.
>
> Lorena Ochoa has won a major? She won the Takefuji classic, Sybase
> Classic and Wendy's Championship for Children.
That's this year. Last year she won the Wegman's LPGA, the year before
she won two.
> Whic of those are majors?
None. I didn't say she had won a major. I said she, along with Annika
and Karrie, have won many tournaments, several of them majors. Lorena
hasn't won a major, yet, but Annika has won three and Karrie has won one
in the last two years.
> Do you really think that Wie wouldn't have a
> tour win at won of these minor events if she played 20 of them a year?
I have no idea. She's very close most of the time, but she hasn't learned
to close the deal. Playing for next to last place against the men isn't
helping her in that respect.
> Like I said, head-to-head she's played as well as anyone, not losing any
> more than she has won and usually doing better. What part of that do you
> not understand?
But you didn't stop there. You said a case could be made for Wie being
the #2 player over the last two years.
> I never said that she was the best player in the world.
> I was disagreeing with someone who didn't say she was a top ten player
> when she's obviously fighting for the #2 spot behind Annika.
>
> And why do you have to exaggerate your weak points by saying "help them
> past their emotional pain"?
First, it's called hyperbole (look it up), and second, I don't see any
weakness in any points I'm making.
>> Oh wait, according to the ranking you're quoting, Annika is ginally
>> better than Michelle. I guess it must have been the 12 victories, 3 of
>> them majors, that helped her eke out a slightly better rating, eh?
>
> Actually Wie's rating is higher than Annika's
LOL. That statement alone should set off all sorts of alarms in your head.
> due the fact that (a) it's
> only for the last year and Annika's won 3 times this year versus 10
> times last year, (b) it's strength of field and (c) it only uses your
> score, so no bonus points for winning. Because of (c) it can't be used
> to determine the best player in the world.
But that's exactly what people use it for, isn't it?
> You could finish #3 all year
> and be ranked #1, but it IS a good system for determining how
> consistently well a player is doing.
Actually, it's not.
>> So, do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with the
>> way Golfweek/Sagarin calculates golf rankings, or do you really think
>> Michelle ought to be ranked ahead of Annika if not for those 3 majors
>> Annika won in the last two years?
>
> Go back and look at the system,
Don't you want to answer the question?
> understand how it works and then come
> back here and debate it.
I understand the system, and I'm pretty sure I'm beginning to understand
why it fails when applied to golfers. The system evolved as a way to rate
a large number of competitors when every competition consists of one
entity (person or team) playing against another entity in a season in
which the overwhelming majority of possible pairings never take place.
As for debating it, I'm not really interested. I will, though, give you
an idea to mull over that may or may not lead you to the same conclusions
I've reached about it.
There is a difference between how a golfer plays when he's "fighting" for
40th place versus when he's in contention, or even trying for a top 5
finish. The difference in money, prestige, and self-confidence between
40th place and 50th place is virtually zero, but the difference between
3rd and 13th is huge.
Now, go and think about that for a while, and come back when you
understand the implications it has in the ranking system.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 18:16:20
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
"R&B" wrote:
> And as for Arizona ranking dead last in education, I find that hard to
> believe. Georgia owned that distinction for years, and only recently crept
> up the list to 49. Are you sure Arizona is 50th? I would think it would be
> Mississippi or Ala-dumbass-bama.
Then that's what you get for thinking and not researching, Randy. For
someone throwing out the stupid call so much lately, you sure seem
incapable of doing a little fact finding, yourself. With that said,
you stumble-fucked your way into being partially correct, Arizona is
not at the bottom...they are slightly south of the 2005 national
average for percentage of the population 25 years of age or older w/
high school graduates. Congrats on Mississippi - they are dead last.
Alabama is ahead of California, Kentucky, Texas, and, yes, Mississippi.
As far as Georgia owning that dubious distinction "for years" - also
wrong....thanks for playing.
> And oh, by the way...who's first?
Look it up yourself, "st guy".
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 19:46:54
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
I'm just bottom posting. You lied when you claimed I made a statement about
the health care industry. As Mr. Miller has pointed out, you have made
statements that any good decent all talk no action PC type would classify as
racist, so who are you to talk?
If a person who is what the racist infrastructure calls a "minority" needs a
root canal, words don't count, it's the people who will put up the cash, or
the denstist/oral surgeon who will do the work for free who count, and that's
all that does count.
I think you will find that the vast majority of posts Dalecki makes go by
without comment from me. A far higher percentage than those of Eric that pass
without comment from you.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 20:28:41
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:
: As Mr. Miller has pointed out, you have made
: statements that any good decent all talk no action PC type would classify as
: racist, so who are you to talk?
Ben, do you have any idea wtf Rob is talking about here?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 20:25:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Are you replying to me?
Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:
: I'm just bottom posting.
Hmm. This post is all text, so it's better. *shrug*
: You lied when you claimed I made a statement about
: the health care industry.
I did? What was this?
"Eric provides service to people of various races every day.
We are talking about direct, person to person interactions."
Eric's a nurse, right? So it follows that you were talking
about his providing service in that industry, right?
: As Mr. Miller has pointed out, you have made
: statements that any good decent all talk no action PC type would classify as
: racist, so who are you to talk?
You had better get to citing. Those are fighting words.
: If a person who is what the racist infrastructure calls a
: "minority" needs a root canal, words don't count,
They don't? You think attitude doesn't matter? Do you really
want to get root canal from somebody predisposed to dislike
you on account of how you look?
: I think you will find that the vast majority of posts Dalecki makes go by
: without comment from me.
Yeah, I wasn't referring to you there, Rob.
: A far higher percentage than those of Eric that pass
: without comment from you.
He deserves every brickbat he gets.
Now if you'll please be so kind as to repost the racist statements
I have made while I still consider you a decent guy, I'd appreciate
it. Short of that, I would appreciate a retraction.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 21:51:42
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
I am not required to justify anything to you. I think you are a racist. One
evidence is the lie about healthcare you made. I said nothing about the healthcare
industry al all, let alone in general, I spoke about Eric in his job. I is your
racist tendancies that interposed some sort of racist view of the healthcare
industry in general into my statement about Eric.
You want to call people like Eric a rasict...well that can be just as easily
thrown right back into your face. What do you do in your life to serve minority
communities that is anywhwere near the level to which Eric serves minority
communities? Nothing but words...accusations directed at others? Eric actually
serves minority communities. That's a fact. You type words on a screen. When it
comes to what you actually do..what? ...that's where reality lives..in what you
actually do.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:15:37
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Rob, I'm sorry. I was trying to have an honest conversation
with you. I thought you were up to it.
I won't make that mistake again.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 01:31:32
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Rob, I'm sorry. I was trying to have an honest conversation
> with you. I thought you were up to it.
>
> I won't make that mistake again.
>
Truth hurts I suppose.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 01:55:54
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
:
: > Rob, I'm sorry. I was trying to have an honest conversation
: > with you. I thought you were up to it.
: >
: > I won't make that mistake again.
:
: Truth hurts I suppose.
That you're not interested in a sincere conversation? No,
it doesn't hurt. It disappoints some. I thought you were
better than this.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 01:42:29
From: The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:450DF533.D4DE88BB@att.net...
>
>
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
>> Rob, I'm sorry. I was trying to have an honest conversation
>> with you. I thought you were up to it.
>>
>> I won't make that mistake again.
>>
>
> Truth hurts I suppose.
You would have to suppose; you've never actually engaged in anything
truthful.
If you ever decide to tell the truth about anything, please alert the media.
I've never seen anyone's head implode before; it should make an interesting
video.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 11:54:21
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Eric Strulowitz
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote:
>
> : At the end of the day though, there are always those people who
> : like to make more sensitive people "bleed". And they are what
> : they are, and most people know the score.
>
> Ya know, Rob, you've never met me. You don't really know what
> motivates me. And here you are passing judgment on me, if I'm
> reading you correctly. I'm reminded a bit of glass houses and
> stone throwing.
You and everyone else judge others based upon their looks, speech and
actions every day and all day long. To be offended because someone has
made a judgment about you is a little pretentious and juvenile.
> I'm not going to rerun my list of reasons to dislike Eric yet
> again -- I think he has posted plenty enough lately for people
> to make up their own minds. But I will reiterate again that it's
> his unrepentant racism that bothers me most. If we're judged by
> the company we keep, that item turn out to be a bit of a problem
> for you.
What judgments can be made about the company you keep and your speech
and actions?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 14:50:34
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: Tough round today..
|
The greens are still rolling that quick there even though there's been some
rain?
I find the greens on the Ridge course tough not from the speed, but they are
hard (for me) to read.
Lots of odd sloping backdrops and such to distract the eye, as well as
several greens with a natural slope built into it.
Having said that I typically play The Ridge better than the Canal side.
Still have a couple passes for the Ridge to use up before the end of the
year too.
RJ
|
|
