| |
Main
Date: 24 Feb 2007 10:01:59
From: annika1980
Subject: What's wrong with RSG?
|
A regular RSG poster e-mailed me questioning me about why I post off-
topic posts in this newsgroup.
He writes:
"RSG has always been plagued by off-topic posts
introduced by people just trolling for a reaction, but it wasn't until
the
regular posters started taking up these debates that the forum
basically
died as a golf discussion group."
=======================
I'll post my reply here for discussion:
----------
I disagree. The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
because there are so many more options these days. I think you'll find
this true of most every newsgroup. The internet is growing.
AOL used to have a great golf community which was often frequented by
PGA Tour Pros and instructors (I first met Butchie there). It was
abut the only game in town where you could go and talk golf. It also
had live chatrooms which made things even more fun. But them days are
over.
Also, there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing golf that wants
to. And the reason you see even the folks who usually rag on off-
topic posts (like Pflum) jump in on the political threads is because
that is what interests them at that moment. Also, it's Winter time in
many places and so there's not much golf to talk about except Tiger.
I'm a golfer (or at least I used to be) who is bored with golf right
now, and I suspect there are more folks like me out there who used to
contribute more.
I think that RSG has always mostly been about the community, rather
than just talking golf. People come there not to hear what some
anonymous person thinks of Tiger Woods or George Bush. They come to
RSG to hear what the regulars there think of them. It is about
personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing
number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?
Have you ever posted on some of the political newsgroups? There are
thousands of posts there and you'll be lucky to get 2 replies to a
post before everyone has moved on to the next thing. There is no
discussion like there is at our own little "19th Hole." And that is
exactly what RSG is ... it is a place where golfers gather to talk
about whatever is on their minds, whether is is golf or something
else. You wouldn't expect every conversation at your golf clubhouse to
be about golf, and you'd look pretty foolish walking around telling
people that they could only talk golf there.
You might even get your ass whipped.
At my course there is much more talk about football, NASCAR, and
politics than golf.
My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
respond to them.
The photo boards are similar in that the same folks usually post there
and so there is interaction between people who recognize other posters
by name. There are more on-topic posts there simply because there is
more to talk about in the photo world with new equipment coming out
all the time. There aren't too many new earth-shattering advances in
golf these days ... just the usual big new drivers that guarantee 30
more yards. And the club builders have better sites to go to for info
as well.
RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
and become the regulars.
Hence, RSG lives on.
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 21:46:29
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Not enough hot chyx.
Next question?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 10:17:23
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Isn't it ironic that there isn't enough bandwidth in RSG to cover all
the things that are wrong with RSG?
It's irony on a base level, but it's still funny.
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 06:59:52
From: Thor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 5:11 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:49 pm, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2:55 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 9:40 am, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
>
> > > > You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
> > > > it here anymore.
>
> > > Why is that?
>
> > > -Greg
>
> > I'm a huge procrastinator with little to no organizational skills, and
> > am lucky to be able to make tee times for the small amount of people
> > who currently show up. So I'm not really interested in having it grow
> > much beyond what it currently is, which is usually about 6 to 12
> > people. It's not really a tournament anyway, we just show up, play
> > (mostly) the same courses, and that's about it. No prizes, no web
> > sites, no expectations.
In the long past (before RSG-Ohio) none of
the get-togethers had a tournament. I believe that
RSG-Ohio was the first to actually have a tournament at an
RSG event.
> St move. Sounds like lots of fun for everyone, especially the
> host.
It is. If I could only attend one event, it would be Pittsburgh.
It is relaxation and fun defined.
But I won't say that here, I don't want k to get burdened
by new golfers signing up.
-- Thor
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:16:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 3:49 pm, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
>
> > Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
>
> You spelled it wrong.
Wrong chat room, PUFFY.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:11:29
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 12:49 pm, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:55 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 9:40 am, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
>
> > > You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
> > > it here anymore.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> > -Greg
>
> I'm a huge procrastinator with little to no organizational skills, and
> am lucky to be able to make tee times for the small amount of people
> who currently show up. So I'm not really interested in having it grow
> much beyond what it currently is, which is usually about 6 to 12
> people. It's not really a tournament anyway, we just show up, play
> (mostly) the same courses, and that's about it. No prizes, no web
> sites, no expectations.
St move. Sounds like lots of fun for everyone, especially the
host.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:49:56
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 2:55 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:40 am, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
>
> > You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
> > it here anymore.
>
> Why is that?
>
> -Greg
I'm a huge procrastinator with little to no organizational skills, and
am lucky to be able to make tee times for the small amount of people
who currently show up. So I'm not really interested in having it grow
much beyond what it currently is, which is usually about 6 to 12
people. It's not really a tournament anyway, we just show up, play
(mostly) the same courses, and that's about it. No prizes, no web
sites, no expectations.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:49:31
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 11:04 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:56 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> > he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> > did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> > all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>
> Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
You spelled it wrong.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 11:55:17
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 9:40 am, "zumafan" <mge...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
>
> You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
> it here anymore.
Why is that?
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 11:07:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 9:35 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> >Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
>
> What makes you think you even made the invitation list?
Name's on the jug, baby. Don't Past Champions get an automatic
invite?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:24:47
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 11:07:51 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 26, 9:35 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>
>> >Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
>>
>> What makes you think you even made the invitation list?
>
>Name's on the jug, baby. Don't Past Champions get an automatic
>invite?
Go ask Charles Coody.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 10:10:25
From: dgeesaman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 1:58 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateS...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > Some people here might have a major self-worth problem if there were only
> > 50 posts here per day. They would lose their entire social picture. Oh
> > well, who am I to tell addicts they are disillusioned?
>
> If you thing RSG has become a bad place to get golf information, let me tell
> you, this is a perfect example of how it's a REALLY bad place to get
> psycho-analysis.
>
> Randy
While I was saying that in jest, what else would describe the raw
emotion some people put into their arguments here? The amount of time
and energy spent by some posters is hard to describe any other way.
RSG has a charter. The charter says that the subject of the group is
golf. Not politics. So the discussion here, to continue the analogy,
is that conversation is about golf. Some other people (whom I mostly
leave in my killfile) seem to think that's not true. For all the talk
and bs about how long people have been posting here, there is an awful
lot of pompous ignorance of the fact that their 'rules' are in
violation of the charter. The charter that predates all of us.
The 'club' conversationists would be well served to create a newsgroup
called rec.sport.golf.19thhole. I'm serious.
Dave
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:40:13
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
it here anymore.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 08:10:08
From:
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 1:01 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> A regular RSG poster e-mailed me questioning me about why I post off-
> topic posts in this newsgroup.
> =======================
> I'll post my reply here for discussion:
> ----------
>
> I disagree. The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
> because there are so many more options these days.
........
> I think that RSG has always mostly been about the community, rather
> than just talking golf.
> .....The people
> that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
> want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
> they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?
For once I agree 100% with the leftist nut :)
However, the "about the community part" is understated, I think that's
what it's ALL about. Well, that, in combination with the online
personae that goes with it.
When the persona became work, I had to become an occasional... Some
people feed on it, but for me it's draining.
Yes, I know, good riddance... etc. In true usenet fashion.
Oh, also I feel the opposite with the summer/winter thing, I'm too
absorbed in my own game and club to think about online during the
summer.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 00:31:44
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 9:04 am, Bear <bearlys...@XShawX.ca > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:48:11 -0500, "\"R&B\""
>
> <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> >2. The number of off-topic (and specifically, political) posts increased
> >sharply as the November election was nearing. This is to be expected,
> >especially when the nation is engaged in making a mid-term course
> >correction. Then we had Winter, when fewer people get to play golf and the
> >number of off-topic threads has always been higher for as long as I've been
> >around here (which dates back over a decade). The real barometer of
> >signal-to-noise won't come until the weather warms up and golfers return to
> >the links, where they belong. Then they'll have some golf stories to share,
> >questions to ask (about their golf swing, new equipment, etc., etc.) and
> >golf will once again be front and center on their minds. It's cyclical.
> >Always has been.
>
> And this is what drives most of the non American posters away. Why is
> RSG thought of as an American group? I keep hearing the winter excuse
> but it seems to me that a fair amount of us play golf in the winter
> and hell for a few (use to be more) posters it is summertime. The
> Aussies post little now, the UK contingent small as it was is even
> smaller and the CanCon has fallen way off. Most I believe leave
> because they get sick of the political threads...sorry American
> political threads. How come the rest of us can show self control and
> not post regional political crap and yet the American stuff just keeps
> rolling on and on and on and on.....
>
> As a Canuck... errrr sorry forgot... Tundra Monkey I'm lucky enough
> to be able to play 12 months a year. At the end of a round when we hit
> the 19th hole the discussion very, very rarely ever ventures into the
> area of politics and I can guaranfuckingtee that the conversation
> never is about American politics. So calling this group the 19th hole
> doesn't work for me and I doubt it works for many non yanks. But I
> suppose this group just follows the what is happening world wide.
> Americans talk and do what they want and then seem surprised when
> others just stop listening or caring.
So skip the political threads. What's so hard about that? Much
easier to piss and moan about it, huh?
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 04:40:19
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett
>
> It's much the same as it is here. Some of them worship me. Some
> revile me.
> But most of them can at least spell my named correctly, Professor.
> And like many of the folks here, I can flip em on and off like a light
> switch.
>
> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
care less.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 05:25:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:40:19 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>
>annika1980 wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett
>>
>> It's much the same as it is here. Some of them worship me. Some
>> revile me.
>> But most of them can at least spell my named correctly, Professor.
>> And like many of the folks here, I can flip em on and off like a light
>> switch.
>>
>> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
>> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
>> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
>
>...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
>care less.
>
Since you brought this up, it makes you the
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:40:19 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett
> >>
> >> It's much the same as it is here. Some of them worship me. Some
> >> revile me.
> >> But most of them can at least spell my named correctly, Professor.
> >> And like many of the folks here, I can flip em on and off like a light
> >> switch.
> >>
> >> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
> >> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
> >> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
> >
> >...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
> >care less.
> >
> Since you brought this up, it makes you the
> 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
>
?????
If you take comment on a group like this as signifying "caring", you must lead a
pretty pathetic life. As for Bret, I read maybe 10% of what he posts if I am
reading RSG to any extent at all. There are only a few people, like say Paul Gore
or David Laville whose posts I will read regardless.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 19:50:42
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 5:41 pm, "Steve S" <n...@fughettaboutit.com > wrote:
>
> I remember something I learned as a child, it was a subtle lesson yet so
> pertinent to what goes on here......
>
> "It takes one to know one"
I've heard that one.
> This was soon followed by "He who smelt it dealt it" which I believe also
> might be apropos.
Whereas I've never heard that one.....and we have six kids. Must be
an east coast thang.
-Greg
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 13:41:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
>> >> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
>> >> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
>> >
>> >...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
>> >care less.
>> >
>> Since you brought this up, it makes you the
>> 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
>>
>
>?????
>
>If you take comment on a group like this as signifying "caring", you must lead a
>pretty pathetic life. <clip>
Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
another news group.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:11:36
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 2:18 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett
It's much the same as it is here. Some of them worship me. Some
revile me.
But most of them can at least spell my named correctly, Professor.
And like many of the folks here, I can flip em on and off like a light
switch.
Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:04:53
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 8:56 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:35:32
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 25 Feb 2007 20:04:53 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 25, 8:56 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>> Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
>> he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
>> did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
>> all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>
>Save your breath. I'm still not coming.
What makes you think you even made the invitation list?
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:58:31
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 2:41 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> No RSG events have
> ever been hyped the way the two RSG-ATLANTA events in '01 and '02 were hyped.
Absolutely GD right!
> That was partly by design, but it was also because the hype itself
> took on a life of its own, with the outgoing online personalities of some of
> its participants -- most notably the two playoff contenders in 2001
> (Annika1980 and Ken Pitts) and the captains of the two 2002 teams, Annika
> (Team Bring It) and myself (The Royal & Ancient Ouimets). Almost as much
> fun as those two events themselves was the build-up to them.
For me, those were the best of times on RSG.
Not only for the memories of the two great events, but for all the pre-
tournament buildup. Sometimes, just for laughs, I'll Google those old
posts and laugh my ass off once again, like the one called "Why Pitts
Fears Me" (that is still one of my favs).
I was pretty funny back then. And whatever happened to Rick DeMent?
I remember when PGA Tour Pro Greg Powers attended the 2001 RSG-ATL and
commented that he'd played in many pro tournaments that weren't as
well organized as the ones you held. I've never seen anybody place as
much attention to detail as you did in your events. I felt fortunate
to play a small part in at least one of them.
I've been fortunate to play in a number of RSG events hosted by a
great bunch of guys like yourself, Alan C., Pflum, Thor, and even The
Hammer, who throws a mean party. I highly recommend all of these
events. If you've never played in one, I guarantee it'll be the high
point of your golf season.
>With very few exceptions, what they've come away with has been a
> collection of great memories and maybe a few new friends.
>And in one case, a dildo.
You're just jealous because I have a Super Cock.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 12:33:53
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 11:41 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> I might this year. We'll see. And
> if I do, you can bet it will be a hum-dinger........that is, if I haven't
> completely alienated everyone so much by then that they wouldn't consider
> attending (which I'll be the first to admit is a distinct possibility).
> LOL!
I hope you do it, Randy, without any regard to those who would shun
you or your event. It's always a good thing to know whom you can
trust, whom you can't.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 10:17:52
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 11:22 pm, "newellsatwsu" <newellat...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:15 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > That's another lie. We had no plans to attend. We didn't attend the
> > prior year. It simply wasn't as much fun as the earlier events, for
> > reasons I've stated before.
>
> Which is exactly why I received a Yes, No, Yes, No series of
> committments from Greg in terms of his attendance for RSGNW 05 in the
> span of about 3-4 weeks prior. In fact, I had to find a last minute
> replacement to fill their spots that year. Either he was lying to me
> or lying to RSG with the above post about his "no plans to attend".
> You decide.
It's simple..... your event was not worth the sacrifice.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 05:05:37
From:
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
> RSG is not a living thing.
It actually is. It was born some 15+ years ago. It grew and grew until
most everything has been covered many times over. It's now in it's
twilight years and now has good days and bad. It has a lot more bad
days in the winter and a lot more good days in the summer. But it is
now dying. It will probably be a long slow death, but it's days are
likely numbered. Being all test based is one of it's bigest cancers...
everything today is visual... and text based doesn't cut it anymore.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 15:31:20
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 25 Feb 2007 05:05:37 -0800, bajacornman@adelphia.net wrote:
>Being all test based is one of it's bigest cancers...
>everything today is visual... and text based doesn't cut it anymore.
Yep. It's also its biggest strengths. GUI is text base with more
work, and can you imagine a camera based replacement?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 11:41:36
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:ora3u2lmlhtq2rcg36e04373vq8ei3mhnp@4ax.com...
> On 25 Feb 2007 05:05:37 -0800, bajacornman@adelphia.net wrote:
>
>>Being all test based is one of it's bigest cancers...
>>everything today is visual... and text based doesn't cut it anymore.
>
> Yep. It's also its biggest strengths. GUI is text base with more
> work, and can you imagine a camera based replacement?
Requiring web cams for post would probably cut down on the number of flame
wars.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 23:31:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:41:36 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>> Yep. It's also its biggest strengths. GUI is text base with more
>> work, and can you imagine a camera based replacement?
>
>
>Requiring web cams for post would probably cut down on the number of flame
>wars.
We need some more events that don't require using up vacation time and
money to go to. Let us play more golf together. (I fantasize about
a RSG event on the Western Slope of Colorado).
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:32:14
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:31:43 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:41:36 -0500, "\"R&B\""
><noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yep. It's also its biggest strengths. GUI is text base with more
>>> work, and can you imagine a camera based replacement?
>>
>>
>>Requiring web cams for post would probably cut down on the number of flame
>>wars.
>
>We need some more events that don't require using up vacation time and
>money to go to. Let us play more golf together. (I fantasize about
>a RSG event on the Western Slope of Colorado).
So start one!
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 04:34:41
From: Noons
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 25, 10:59 am, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au >
wrote:
>
> Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
> off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
> e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
> Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
> Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
> simply don't bother.
Agree with most points. But there are a lot of folks
here, me included, who got totally fed-up with the
badly desguised advertising going on a few years ago.
C-list, or call it whatever: couldn't care less.
Fact is: it was going on and it got outed.
The usual pack of trained monkeys jumped in
to discredit any and everyone who dared go against
the accepted "currents". Which were nothing else than
blatant self-promotion or badly desguised advertising.
As a result, many folks stopped posting. Although we still
read what's going on from time to time and jump in whenever
it might sound worth it. Or just for fun. But waste time proving
yet again the little insider games that were going on?
Narh. Nothing like letting arseholes sink in their own shit.
And that's exactly what has happened: when the only folks
left talking were the peddlers: the group went down on
its purpose and all sorts of other crap started. Like the
politics.
But it's not true that all have left. I see many old
names jumping in from time to time. I don't participate much
mainly because US politics are essentially boring to me
in this context and that's what gets discussed most of the time.
And I don't have much more to discuss about my golf: reached
a plateau I'm comfortable with, which was my target when I
started this game. To take it to higher levels would require a time
commitment I'm not prepared to give right now. Maybe later
in life, when and if I retire. Until then I'm happy where I am.
So I don't participate here much anymore. Doesn't mean
I don't follow it. And the same goes for many other
Usenet groups.
One thing though I reckon has changed: the blogsphere
is very interesting to follow and it takes a lot of the time
dedicated to the Usenet. I'm finding that at least in my
field it attracts a better level of discussion than the Usenet.
Mostly because arseholes can easily be kept under control.
Something we still haven't sorted out well in RSG.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 06:08:40
From: Don A Roof
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Re. the subject line:
JMO but I've been around long enough now that I've heard "what's wrong
with (fill in the blank)...?" more times than I could count.
There's nothing wrong with RSG as long as you have the active posters
that you do - I suppose I should say "regular" posters because I don't
want to include outright spammers and trolls.
You have a community here like most long time groups on the net. Many
of you know each other and have met and played golf together in some
instances so you are also like a club of sorts.
Do any of you know of ANY club where the bullshit at the bar is ALWAYS
about golf? Of course not.
I'm priily a lurker - like the guy at the bar who sits and listens
and enjoys the conversation with his drinks. I enjoy the give and take
here. Of course there are egos involved and of course the subjects vary
off the beaten track of golf.
There is enough golf talk that anyone searching for it can find it here.
Some very good and interesting observations as far as I'm concerned.
100% golf all the time - nope - and so what?
How crazy is it to complain about OT posts, boring posts, political
posts, uninteresting posts etc etc ----when ALL you have to do is keep
scrolling down the page skipping past that which disinterests you or
posts from people who irritate you?
Again- not much different than your club room where you can choose to
sit down - listen, participate, talk with whomever or ignore whomever,
and leave whenever you choose......
Nothing wrong with RSG - IMO....
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:22:09
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 8:15 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> That's another lie. We had no plans to attend. We didn't attend the
> prior year. It simply wasn't as much fun as the earlier events, for
> reasons I've stated before.
Which is exactly why I received a Yes, No, Yes, No series of
committments from Greg in terms of his attendance for RSGNW 05 in the
span of about 3-4 weeks prior. In fact, I had to find a last minute
replacement to fill their spots that year. Either he was lying to me
or lying to RSG with the above post about his "no plans to attend".
You decide.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 04:41:30
From: frank ross
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
newellsatwsu wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:15 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>> That's another lie. We had no plans to attend. We didn't attend the
>> prior year. It simply wasn't as much fun as the earlier events, for
>> reasons I've stated before.
>
> Which is exactly why I received a Yes, No, Yes, No series of
> committments from Greg in terms of his attendance for RSGNW 05 in the
> span of about 3-4 weeks prior. In fact, I had to find a last minute
> replacement to fill their spots that year. Either he was lying to me
> or lying to RSG with the above post about his "no plans to attend".
> You decide.
>
No, no. Say it isn't so. You can't mean that Deeny the weeny is lying?
That puts a whole new perspective on his post about the c-list. He had
me believing that it was a band of nefarious provocateurs whose only aim
in life was to take control of RSG, in order to put all of its users
into indentured servitude. Right Professor? (Who has no use for all
those who do not post under their real names) ;-)
Get real.
Frank Ross
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:48:11
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172340119.118230.37460@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>A regular RSG poster e-mailed me questioning me about why I post off-
> topic posts in this newsgroup.
>
> He writes:
>
> "RSG has always been plagued by off-topic posts
> introduced by people just trolling for a reaction, but it wasn't until
> the
> regular posters started taking up these debates that the forum
> basically
> died as a golf discussion group."
>
> =======================
> I'll post my reply here for discussion:
> ----------
>
> I disagree. The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
> because there are so many more options these days. I think you'll find
> this true of most every newsgroup. The internet is growing.
> AOL used to have a great golf community which was often frequented by
> PGA Tour Pros and instructors (I first met Butchie there). It was
> abut the only game in town where you could go and talk golf. It also
> had live chatrooms which made things even more fun. But them days are
> over.
>
> Also, there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing golf that wants
> to. And the reason you see even the folks who usually rag on off-
> topic posts (like Pflum) jump in on the political threads is because
> that is what interests them at that moment. Also, it's Winter time in
> many places and so there's not much golf to talk about except Tiger.
> I'm a golfer (or at least I used to be) who is bored with golf right
> now, and I suspect there are more folks like me out there who used to
> contribute more.
>
> I think that RSG has always mostly been about the community, rather
> than just talking golf. People come there not to hear what some
> anonymous person thinks of Tiger Woods or George Bush. They come to
> RSG to hear what the regulars there think of them. It is about
> personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing
> number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
> that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
> want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
> they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?
>
> Have you ever posted on some of the political newsgroups? There are
> thousands of posts there and you'll be lucky to get 2 replies to a
> post before everyone has moved on to the next thing. There is no
> discussion like there is at our own little "19th Hole." And that is
> exactly what RSG is ... it is a place where golfers gather to talk
> about whatever is on their minds, whether is is golf or something
> else. You wouldn't expect every conversation at your golf clubhouse to
> be about golf, and you'd look pretty foolish walking around telling
> people that they could only talk golf there.
> You might even get your ass whipped.
> At my course there is much more talk about football, NASCAR, and
> politics than golf.
> My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
> respond to them.
>
> The photo boards are similar in that the same folks usually post there
> and so there is interaction between people who recognize other posters
> by name. There are more on-topic posts there simply because there is
> more to talk about in the photo world with new equipment coming out
> all the time. There aren't too many new earth-shattering advances in
> golf these days ... just the usual big new drivers that guarantee 30
> more yards. And the club builders have better sites to go to for info
> as well.
>
> RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
> even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
> many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
> and become the regulars.
> Hence, RSG lives on.
I think you're right on the money with this.
Furthermore, I think those who have observed a ked decline in the
percentage of golf posts versus off-topic (and in particular, political
posts), and have complained about it, would, if they were honest about it,
admit two things:
1. They've done little to reverse the trend besides chatting amongst
themselves elsewhere and bitching about it without offering or acting upon
any useful suggestions for how to change it. This tells me that even those
doing the loudest complaining don't really care that much one way or the
other.
and
2. The number of off-topic (and specifically, political) posts increased
sharply as the November election was nearing. This is to be expected,
especially when the nation is engaged in making a mid-term course
correction. Then we had Winter, when fewer people get to play golf and the
number of off-topic threads has always been higher for as long as I've been
around here (which dates back over a decade). The real barometer of
signal-to-noise won't come until the weather warms up and golfers return to
the links, where they belong. Then they'll have some golf stories to share,
questions to ask (about their golf swing, new equipment, etc., etc.) and
golf will once again be front and center on their minds. It's cyclical.
Always has been.
Either way, I don't consider it cause for alarm.
[Obligatory off-topic, political content]: Now if the two-term limit for
Presidents was lifted -- I would consider THAT cause for alarm. (Not that
the fool we have in there now would have a prayer of getting re-elected for
a third term if such a thing was allowable.)
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 17:07:45
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
>
> 1. They've done little to reverse the trend besides chatting amongst
> themselves elsewhere and bitching about it without offering or acting upon
> any useful suggestions for how to change it. This tells me that even
> those doing the loudest complaining don't really care that much one way or
> the other.
>
> and
>
> 2. The number of off-topic (and specifically, political) posts increased
> sharply as the November election was nearing. This is to be expected,
> especially when the nation is engaged in making a mid-term course
> correction. Then we had Winter, when fewer people get to play golf and
> the number of off-topic threads has always been higher for as long as I've
> been around here (which dates back over a decade). The real barometer of
> signal-to-noise won't come until the weather warms up and golfers return
> to the links, where they belong. Then they'll have some golf stories to
> share, questions to ask (about their golf swing, new equipment, etc.,
> etc.) and golf will once again be front and center on their minds. It's
> cyclical. Always has been.
>
> Either way, I don't consider it cause for alarm.
>
Pardon me for attaching a few comments here. I can't keep up with the
bandwidth on this. I'm one of those who laments the off topic stuff, in
fact the one who prompted Annika's post. You are right that a decrease in
golf content and an increase in the off topic stuff is a regular phenomenon,
but as an observer and poster here for 25 years in my view at least it's
gotten signficantly worse, and it's reached the point where I think more
people have bailed (though it's interesting that I've seen some people on
this thread that I didn't realize were still even looking here, maybe it's
not that bad). The trouble with saying you can just filter it is at some
point it just gets to be too much bother. Everyone has their own threshold
for wading through spam. Mine is actually quite high (i.e. willing to wade
through a lot of crap on the chance of finding something of interest), but
it's not infinite. Usually in winter the discussion turns to club making,
and our freinds down under make some contributions, but I think too many of
those folks have gone away. Maybe it's just a reflection of what's going on
in the US -- I've never seen the presidential election season start quite
this early. But that doesn't make it any better that it's here. I think
the theory that there is too much competition is valid. There are a lot of
forums out there and many that are more focussed and less subject to off
topic posting. Maybe the time for Usenet has really passed. In it's prime,
the beauty of it was that a lot of people discovered it and made connections
here, whether it was with club makers who got them into the dark side or
with RSG events. A lot of us got some great advice on courses and met some
people to play with in other parts of the world. I don't think there is any
place that is quite so open to making those kinds of connections, and
unfortunately I doubt it's going to happen if the "newbies" on this group
find it filled with off topic content or if their first attempts to post are
met with personal abuse.
I'll dip my keyboard fingers in here once in a while, but don't expect I'll
be a regular here for a while at least. It's been fun.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 17:04:02
From: Bear
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:48:11 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>
>2. The number of off-topic (and specifically, political) posts increased
>sharply as the November election was nearing. This is to be expected,
>especially when the nation is engaged in making a mid-term course
>correction. Then we had Winter, when fewer people get to play golf and the
>number of off-topic threads has always been higher for as long as I've been
>around here (which dates back over a decade). The real barometer of
>signal-to-noise won't come until the weather warms up and golfers return to
>the links, where they belong. Then they'll have some golf stories to share,
>questions to ask (about their golf swing, new equipment, etc., etc.) and
>golf will once again be front and center on their minds. It's cyclical.
>Always has been.
>
And this is what drives most of the non American posters away. Why is
RSG thought of as an American group? I keep hearing the winter excuse
but it seems to me that a fair amount of us play golf in the winter
and hell for a few (use to be more) posters it is summertime. The
Aussies post little now, the UK contingent small as it was is even
smaller and the CanCon has fallen way off. Most I believe leave
because they get sick of the political threads...sorry American
political threads. How come the rest of us can show self control and
not post regional political crap and yet the American stuff just keeps
rolling on and on and on and on.....
As a Canuck... errrr sorry forgot... Tundra Monkey I'm lucky enough
to be able to play 12 months a year. At the end of a round when we hit
the 19th hole the discussion very, very rarely ever ventures into the
area of politics and I can guaranfuckingtee that the conversation
never is about American politics. So calling this group the 19th hole
doesn't work for me and I doubt it works for many non yanks. But I
suppose this group just follows the what is happening world wide.
Americans talk and do what they want and then seem surprised when
others just stop listening or caring.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 23:49:13
From: Bob Cotter
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
In article <q4f3u2du0jhf9qqnrr4al7ke7litn5q7rh@4ax.com >,
Bear <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:48:11 -0500, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >2. The number of off-topic (and specifically, political) posts increased
> >sharply as the November election was nearing. This is to be expected,
> >especially when the nation is engaged in making a mid-term course
> >correction. Then we had Winter, when fewer people get to play golf and the
> >number of off-topic threads has always been higher for as long as I've been
> >around here (which dates back over a decade). The real barometer of
> >signal-to-noise won't come until the weather warms up and golfers return to
> >the links, where they belong. Then they'll have some golf stories to share,
> >questions to ask (about their golf swing, new equipment, etc., etc.) and
> >golf will once again be front and center on their minds. It's cyclical.
> >Always has been.
> >
>
> And this is what drives most of the non American posters away. Why is
> RSG thought of as an American group? I keep hearing the winter excuse
> but it seems to me that a fair amount of us play golf in the winter
> and hell for a few (use to be more) posters it is summertime. The
> Aussies post little now, the UK contingent small as it was is even
> smaller and the CanCon has fallen way off. Most I believe leave
> because they get sick of the political threads...sorry American
> political threads. How come the rest of us can show self control and
> not post regional political crap and yet the American stuff just keeps
> rolling on and on and on and on.....
>
> As a Canuck... errrr sorry forgot... Tundra Monkey I'm lucky enough
> to be able to play 12 months a year. At the end of a round when we hit
> the 19th hole the discussion very, very rarely ever ventures into the
> area of politics and I can guaranfuckingtee that the conversation
> never is about American politics. So calling this group the 19th hole
> doesn't work for me and I doubt it works for many non yanks. But I
> suppose this group just follows the what is happening world wide.
> Americans talk and do what they want and then seem surprised when
> others just stop listening or caring.
So, Bear, can I put down for RSG-Border Wars this summer to be held up
here in the Pacific NorthWest <g >.
Cheers... Bob
--
If replying by email, please remove the removes.
Visit my home course at <http://www.sunshinecoastgolf.com >
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:15:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 7:20 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:04:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
Wow....what a liar. Examples follow....
> There was never any concerted attacks. You made outlandish statements
> and were called on them. Eric is Eric. He, as John pointed out, made
> his own bed. Incidentally, Eric called me in September, as he was
> leaving and told me straightforward that he didn't blame me for what
> ultimately caused him to leave. We're fine.
>
> Greg? If you mean Dene, he was a charter member of the C-List, and as
> I remember took issue with you at times.
Funny thing....I don't remember these exchanges. Do you, Rob?
Eric....yes. Rob....nope.
Until he was asked to leave
> the group. But he'll probably say that he was planning to leave
> before that.
Nope. I was booted.
Just like he was not planning to go to RSG-NW before he
> was asked not to come. LOL.
That's another lie. We had no plans to attend. We didn't attend the
prior year. It simply wasn't as much fun as the earlier events, for
reasons I've stated before.
> George Hibbard was a terrible spammer...remember that Eric, himself,
> was very, very vocal about his duplicity and spamming. He deserved
> the flak that was given him, and it didn't all come from one area.
>
> The group didn't go down, you were just pissed that you weren't
> included. Dene himself laughed about that.
Another lie. I told Rob that not being in the C-list was no big
deal.....more trouble than it was worth.
Hegemony? Get serious.
> Show me one iota of it being possible for any person, or group, to
> exert authority over RSG. That never was an aim, and you damn well
> know it. That's the lie that you keep telling, and believing.
Lies...lies....lies. There have been several instances of your
cronies coming out of the woodwork on hot threads and rallying around
you. Tell me that you haven't been e-mailing folks about this. You
use to e-mail me when you were pissed with Rob or Eric.
> You just never got over it.
He knows the truth and has the guts to stick by it.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 19:25:14
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 7:05 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2007 17:07:58 -0800, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey.
>
> Why? Does the event have to be attended by RSG regulars to be
> considered legit? With all of the handles/anonymous posters you could
> never know who posts and who doesn't.
>
> >Did the SoCal tournament actually happen? How many attended?
>
> Yep and why does it matter?
Because the host is a nice man and appeared to have a good tourney
lined up. Glad it happened.
> > Scott posted
> >about RSG-NW...no response. I don't doubt you and Thor's tournaments
> >do well, but how many of the 1st time attendees are RSG posters?
> >Isn't it more accurate to say they are friends of a regular attendee,
> >yours perhaps?
>
> I looked back at the past years' attendees at Cincy. Easily more than
> half of them I get to see only once or twice per year and only at RSG
> events. Of those, only two or three would I really consider close
> friends. The rest are all acquaintances who come to play golf,
> socialize, and have fun. I've gotten a number of emails from lurkers
> who don't post expressing interest about my event. I guess I don't
> understand why the events are declining when more people attend every
> year.
I'm comparing them to tourneys that were prominent when I started RSG,
in particular RSG-Atl. It seemed that there were more tourneys then,
attended by many from RSG, with lots of talk in RSG. Nowdays, I don't
see that. I don't recall any discussion of the So-Cal event. Perhaps
it was more of a C-list event.
> >> I can see the analogy of RSG being a 19th hole. I don't much enjoy
> >> talking politics with people from both sides who are unable/unwilling
> >> to have an actual exchange of ideas instead of just yelling
> >> accusations at each other. That's why I don't talk politics here.
>
> >This group is capable of civil exchanges. IMO, if people were to
> >suddenly quit biting the Larry baits, you'd see a lot more of this
> >civil discussions in all arenas of life.
>
> I agree on that one.
Did we just have an civil exchange of ideas? ; >
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:51:43
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 24 Feb 2007 19:25:14 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>I'm comparing them to tourneys that were prominent when I started RSG,
>in particular RSG-Atl. It seemed that there were more tourneys then,
>attended by many from RSG, with lots of talk in RSG. Nowdays, I don't
>see that. I don't recall any discussion of the So-Cal event. Perhaps
>it was more of a C-list event.
>
I'll agree that the RSG-ATL were the most hyped, publicized, and talk
about events that I can remember. I thought they were a lot of fun
and Randy used his skills in radio and promotion to do a great job
with the events. Putting words into Randy's mouth, I believe that his
new work is keeping him crazy busy and he hasn't had the time/interest
to host another one.
>>
>> I agree on that one.
>
>Did we just have an civil exchange of ideas? ;>
>
No way, that's impossible.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 02:41:23
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote
>
> I'm comparing them to tourneys that were prominent when I started RSG,
> in particular RSG-Atl. It seemed that there were more tourneys then,
> attended by many from RSG, with lots of talk in RSG. Nowdays, I don't
> see that. I don't recall any discussion of the So-Cal event. Perhaps
> it was more of a C-list event.
In fairness to others, I will be the first to admit that as the host of
RSG-ATLANTA, and as a long-time media professional, my stock in trade is
hype. The reason it may seem to you that there's not as much talk about
other RSG events is, well, because there just isn't. No RSG events have
ever been hyped the way the two RSG-ATLANTA events in '01 and '02 were
hyped. That was partly by design, but it was also because the hype itself
took on a life of its own, with the outgoing online personalities of some of
its participants -- most notably the two playoff contenders in 2001
(Annika1980 and Ken Pitts) and the captains of the two 2002 teams, Annika
(Team Bring It) and myself (The Royal & Ancient Ouimets). Almost as much
fun as those two events themselves was the build-up to them. There was even
a non-attendee who published an RSG-ATLANTA '01 parody website, which was
hysterical. But the hype was never intended to convey any illusions of
grandeur. It was just intended to create a sense of fun.
There were no RSG-ATLANTA events in '03 and '04 because my attention had to
turn to business and I really couldn't host. By '05, I hadn't been playing
enough golf to even give the game that much attention, let alone consider
hosting an RSG event. There was a stretch of about 11 months when I didn't
touch a club, and then when I resumed playing, I only played 3 or 4 rounds
and then laid off once again for about 7 more months. Golf just took a back
seat to business in my life for a while. I considered hosting another
RSG-ATLANTA event in '06, but didn't. I might this year. We'll see. And
if I do, you can bet it will be a hum-dinger........that is, if I haven't
completely alienated everyone so much by then that they wouldn't consider
attending (which I'll be the first to admit is a distinct possibility).
LOL!
But make no mistake -- these other RSG get-togethers are great events, and
all the hosts do a great job. You need only ask the attendees to confirm
that.
You have to remember that prior to the first RSG-ATLANTA, only one other RSG
event that I'm aware of was regularly attended by more than 30 or 40 people.
That event is RSG-OHIO, the acknowledged grandaddy of all RSG events. (I
can't speak for RSG-HERSHEY, another of the group's heritage events... it
might have similar attendance, I just don't know.) Most RSG events have
always been rather informal affairs, with attendance generally numbering
closer to 10 or 12 people (often people who live within easy driving
distance), not 30 or 40 people (with some flying in from around the
country). But today, there are easily three or four events (maybe more)
that sport an attendee list numbering in excess of 15 or 20 people. I think
that's great. It certainly flies in the face of Rob's thesis that these
things are dying off. Quite the contrary is true.
I applaud those other hosts -- of events big and small -- for their efforts.
It doesn't really matter how many people attend. What matters is what the
attendees come away with.
With very few exceptions, what they've come away with has been a collection
of great memories and maybe a few new friends.
And in one case, a dildo.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 02:00:46
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
\"R&B\" wrote:
snippit...
RSG-Atlanta I was very well done, and I certainly enjoyed it a lot. It was and
is different from the others that have come out of it in that it drew over 20
legitimate contemporary RSG posters to it. It was more like RSG Ohio. Most of
these other events are more for cronies of one person or another, and it shows
pretty clearly, especially with RSG NW. Nothing wrong with that BTW, just the
way it is.
RSG Atlanta I inspired a number of other people to hold events, including me,
and IMHO this was a very good thing. However a lot of cronyism emereged from RSG
Atl I, mostly in relation to a conspiracy against Hibbard, which I still believe
to be an absurdidly nutty thing to do. I can only speak for myself, but in the
case of golf the only cronies I have any interest in are those who like to golf.
What you think of Hibbard, or Lllarry isn't anything I am interested in when I
go out to golf with anyone. The newsgroup isn't the thing to me; golf is the
thing...or was...now it's all about the newsgroup but then it was about the
golf, and I personally liked that.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have been attacked here for doing
things like having people make a charitable contribution from outings and
tipping a pro 20 bucks for making a tee time. In any event, RSG Atl I was a
great outing, but it spawned the organized consipracy against Hibbard, and it
was all downhill here from then on as they, like all such groups, didn't stop at
Hibbard, and all one has to do is look at the posts today and those of Feb 25,
2000 (look it up if you want using the search feature!) to see the before and
after of it.
It seems to me that there is a core of people who attend a lot of these RSG
outings who are/have been part of this out to get people mentality, and I won't
have any part of that myself. Life is too short. I'll comment on it though! One
thing that is good at this point is the out to get someone activity has dropped
off a lot, and the newgroup is becoming much more civil, even though it has more
religion and politics than golf in it. RSG couldn't be civil about golf in 2005
but in 2007 it can be civil about politics!
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 02:59:29
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> On Feb 24, 6:27 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
> > "It is about personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
> > that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
> > want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
> > they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?"
> >
> > ...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
> > togethers. I, at least, have never had any problem whatsoever finding groups to
> > golf with right here where I live. It's just a matter of being whoever you are
> > and enjoying the golf for what it is, recreation.
>
> And yet you have attended some of the same events that I have
> attended.
> Why did you go if not for the comraderie?
Oh, absolutely. But I don't need crap from people like Koenig and Dalecki in my life. If it's you and Eric and Sparky and Joe Cartpath and etc., I'm game,
but I'm too old for the rest of that garbage.
I post here today because I just got back from a trip to Starkville MS, and I need to get ovet the shock! I've just been sittin' here pickin' on my guitar
all day attracting male cats, jamming a little with them, and when I get a little tired of it I boot up the computer, about as inane as watching TV.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 18:42:17
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 5:53 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> >They did the real damage to this group, IMHO.
>
> Horseshit. You're proving the adage that if you repeat a lie long
> enough, you'll believe it yourself. There never was any desire, much
> less, possibility of any control of this, or any, unmoderated news
> group, and anyone that even suggests it is imbecilic. You and I know
> the real reason that you like to cast aspersions to the c-list, but it
> isn't worth going over again.
That's the lie you keep telling yourself and expecting others to
believe. Rob wasn't a part of the C-list. I was....and saw first
hand the control you and others tried to impose on RSG.
> The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
> was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
> harming the news group...and that was successful.
Another lie. Remember when one of your own did a background check on
George Hibbard. The plan was to expose him, embarass him, and run him
off.
Other than that it
> was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
> a chat group, and communicate daily.
That's obvious.
Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
> couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
Good.
> Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
> hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
> you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
> of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
OT posts have not harmed RSG. Cronyism did, along with the Larry
threads, and your prolific ankle-bites on newbies.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 17:43:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 6:27 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> "It is about personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
> that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
> want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
> they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?"
>
> ...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
> togethers. I, at least, have never had any problem whatsoever finding groups to
> golf with right here where I live. It's just a matter of being whoever you are
> and enjoying the golf for what it is, recreation.
And yet you have attended some of the same events that I have
attended.
Why did you go if not for the comraderie?
=====================
>
> "Have you ever posted on some of the political newsgroups? There are
> thousands of posts there and you'll be lucky to get 2 replies to a
> post before everyone has moved on to the next thing."
>
> Posting to get a reply = trolling. Speaks for itself, and that's what RSG is
> about for a lot of the posts here.
Posting and not wanting a reply = stupid waste of time.
If you just want to write something for other people to read, make a
blog.
======================
>
> Rubbish. If people talked in the 19th hole like they do here, there'd be a lot
> of fights in the 19th hole. You can't claim to be something you are not in the
> 19th hole. Not much happening in most 19th holes anymore anyways.
Plenty of talk about Da Ringer's wife, or so I hear.
I did NOT just say that!
======================
So if I understand you correctly you say there are very few
intelligent posters here, nobody wants to talk about golf, and
everybody is a troll.
One wonders why you're still here? I thought you had left for that
GEA group years ago?
You illustrate my main point perfectly, Frosty.
People come here because they like it here.
Admit it, Rob, you crave the conflict.
Like you said, it stopped being about just golf long ago. So why are
you still here?
You remind me of the guy at our club (his name was Bob) back in the
day who loved to bitch. It didn't matter what happened, he was
bitching. He'd cry like a baby every time the teams for the morning
low-ball were posted. One time he complained that I had the best team
by far (I thought so too, but I wouldn't admit it ... just made a lot
of team bets with anyone I could find). At the turn his team was 6-
under and my team was only 1-under. And this guy was still bitching!
When his team finished at 10-under and my team shot the back 9-under
to tie him, you've never heard such wailing. Until now, I mean.
One winter Saturday, the snow had started to fall and the temps were
in the low 20's. About 4 or 5 of us had gathered at the course (out of
habit mostly), and were huddled around a kerosene heater in the middle
of the ice cold pro shop.
Old Bob comes through the door and asks, "Is the course open?"
Ralph pipes up, "You come to play golf, Bob, or did ya just come down
to bitch about the frame?"
The moral of the story is what my wife calls "Q.Y.B."
Quit Your Bitching.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:07:37
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 24 Feb 2007 17:43:49 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>The moral of the story is what my wife calls "Q.Y.B."
>
>Quit Your Bitching.
>
I like that. I just might change the name of my event to QYB
Cincinnati.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:23:13
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Dene wrote:
> On Feb 24, 3:59 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
> > off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
> > e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
> > Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
> > Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
> > simply don't bother.
>
> Bellomy still posts. So does Newell when Larry routinely tosses out
> the stinkbait. I truly miss Clary and Newman. However, half your
> list are C-listers with an agenda and subsequent actions that hardly
> benefited RSG. They couldn't control RSG, so they left, and I'm glad.
>
> -Greg
They did the real damage to this group, IMHO.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:53:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:23:13 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>Dene wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 3:59 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
>> > off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
>> > e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
>> > Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
>> > Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
>> > simply don't bother.
>>
>> Bellomy still posts. So does Newell when Larry routinely tosses out
>> the stinkbait. I truly miss Clary and Newman. However, half your
>> list are C-listers with an agenda and subsequent actions that hardly
>> benefited RSG. They couldn't control RSG, so they left, and I'm glad.
>>
>> -Greg
>
>They did the real damage to this group, IMHO.
>
Horseshit. You're proving the adage that if you repeat a lie long
enough, you'll believe it yourself. There never was any desire, much
less, possibility of any control of this, or any, unmoderated news
group, and anyone that even suggests it is imbecilic. You and I know
the real reason that you like to cast aspersions to the c-list, but it
isn't worth going over again.
The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
harming the news group...and that was successful. Other than that it
was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
a chat group, and communicate daily. Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
bk
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 03:04:29
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:23:13 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
> >Dene wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 24, 3:59 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
> >> > off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
> >> > e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
> >> > Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
> >> > Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
> >> > simply don't bother.
> >>
> >> Bellomy still posts. So does Newell when Larry routinely tosses out
> >> the stinkbait. I truly miss Clary and Newman. However, half your
> >> list are C-listers with an agenda and subsequent actions that hardly
> >> benefited RSG. They couldn't control RSG, so they left, and I'm glad.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >They did the real damage to this group, IMHO.
> >
> Horseshit. You're proving the adage that if you repeat a lie long
> enough, you'll believe it yourself. There never was any desire, much
> less, possibility of any control of this, or any, unmoderated news
> group, and anyone that even suggests it is imbecilic. You and I know
> the real reason that you like to cast aspersions to the c-list, but it
> isn't worth going over again.
>
> The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
> was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
> harming the news group...and that was successful. Other than that it
> was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
> a chat group, and communicate daily. Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
> couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
>
> Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
> hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
> you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
> of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
>
> bk
You have your opinion, and I mine. However, when y'all started with the concerted
attacks on legitimate regulars like me and Eric and Greg abd yes, even Goerge
Hibbard, who does post a lot to GEA with no harm done, that's when the group went
down, and I don't see it coming back up. Used to have a lot more, and a lot
nastier trollish posts here, but the group was a lot better because a group the
regulars weren't so bend on establishing some sort of hegemony here. It's just a
freaking golf DB.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 02:10:32
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45E0FA6F.B0049FFF@att.net...
>
>
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:23:13 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Dene wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Feb 24, 3:59 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls
>> >> > and
>> >> > off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past
>> >> > posters
>> >> > e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny
>> >> > Stultz,
>> >> > Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
>> >> > Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
>> >> > simply don't bother.
>> >>
>> >> Bellomy still posts. So does Newell when Larry routinely tosses out
>> >> the stinkbait. I truly miss Clary and Newman. However, half your
>> >> list are C-listers with an agenda and subsequent actions that hardly
>> >> benefited RSG. They couldn't control RSG, so they left, and I'm glad.
>> >>
>> >> -Greg
>> >
>> >They did the real damage to this group, IMHO.
>> >
>> Horseshit. You're proving the adage that if you repeat a lie long
>> enough, you'll believe it yourself. There never was any desire, much
>> less, possibility of any control of this, or any, unmoderated news
>> group, and anyone that even suggests it is imbecilic. You and I know
>> the real reason that you like to cast aspersions to the c-list, but it
>> isn't worth going over again.
>>
>> The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
>> was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
>> harming the news group...and that was successful. Other than that it
>> was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
>> a chat group, and communicate daily. Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
>> couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
>>
>> Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
>> hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
>> you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
>> of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
>>
>> bk
>
> You have your opinion, and I mine. However, when y'all started with the
> concerted
> attacks on legitimate regulars like me and Eric and Greg abd yes, even
> Goerge
> Hibbard, who does post a lot to GEA with no harm done, that's when the
> group went
> down, and I don't see it coming back up. Used to have a lot more, and a
> lot
> nastier trollish posts here, but the group was a lot better because a
> group the
> regulars weren't so bend on establishing some sort of hegemony here. It's
> just a
> freaking golf DB.
If the worst thing you can say about the c-list is that it focused its
energy on running off, embarrassing or even smearing a small handful of
posters (you named about five), then I have a hard time seeing how that
could have possibly caused the far-reaching damage that you claim it did,
given that there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of others who have
posted here all along, and hundreds or thousands who pop in and out all the
time.
What you're really referring to is a war that was engaged between two
factions of RSG regulars. On one side was a small group that included you,
Dene, Eric, George and maybe one or two others. On the other side was a
group of about ten people who subscribe to a private e-mail list generally
referred to as the c-list (facetiously named "c" for "clique," a term often
used to describe us by that person we chose to ignore and who, thankfully,
finally left RSG alone after he was exposed as the crossdressing freak that
he was).
So, what we have here is a war waged between about 15 people. Considering
that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, more who post to RSG, explain
to me how this limited conflict caused widespread damage to anything or
anyone other than the principals involved. The numbers just don't add up,
Rob.
Randy
PS - For the record, I have not been a subscriber to the c-list for some
time now. But I reject the notion that there was ever an organized effort
by members of the c-list to "control" anything other than to request a
voluntary group-wide ignore policy against that crossdressing freak, which,
fortunately, was adopted by most posters here. Good thing, because it
worked.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:12:39
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
\"R&B\" wrote:
>
> What you're really referring to is a war that was engaged between two
> factions of RSG regulars. On one side was a small group that included you,
> Dene, Eric, George and maybe one or two others. On the other side was a
> group of about ten people who subscribe to a private e-mail list generally
> referred to as the c-list (facetiously named "c" for "clique," a term often
> used to describe us by that person we chose to ignore and who, thankfully,
> finally left RSG alone after he was exposed as the crossdressing freak that
> he was).
There is only one problem here. No one else formed any sort of idiot conspiracy
to gang up on the actions of other people. What I saw was a group of paranoid
schizophrenics that attacked people like me and Eric while we defended
ourselves. A good case in point is the so called RSG events. If Eric or I
announced such an event, the RSG nutcases were all over it with literally
hundreds of posts trashing them. No such thing from me or Eric for things like
RSG-NW or RSG-Wisc, for example. Again, I just call it as I see it though, and I
know that I couldn't forumlate the desire to care what people like Newell and
Dalecki do, let alone launch a prolonged "offensive" against their activites.
While I don't care, all I really have to offer to them is my best wishes and the
only action I will take is to stay as far away from such as they as possible.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 13:12:32
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45E1DD58.C0AF174E@att.net...
> A good case in point is the so called RSG events. If Eric or I
> announced such an event, the RSG nutcases were all over it with literally
> hundreds of posts trashing them. No such thing from me or Eric for things
> like
> RSG-NW or RSG-Wisc, for example. Again, I just call it as I see it though,
No shuch thing ever happened.
Nobody trashed the events you and Eric organized, until you and Eric came
back and started trashing each other. Then, it was comedy central.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 03:20:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:04:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
<clip >
>> The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
>> was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
>> harming the news group...and that was successful. Other than that it
>> was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
>> a chat group, and communicate daily. Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
>> couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
>>
>> Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
>> hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
>> you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
>> of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
>>
>> bk
>
>You have your opinion, and I mine. However, when y'all started with the concerted
>attacks on legitimate regulars like me and Eric and Greg abd yes, even Goerge
>Hibbard, who does post a lot to GEA with no harm done, that's when the group went
>down, and I don't see it coming back up. Used to have a lot more, and a lot
>nastier trollish posts here, but the group was a lot better because a group the
>regulars weren't so bend on establishing some sort of hegemony here. It's just a
>freaking golf DB.
>
There was never any concerted attacks. You made outlandish statements
and were called on them. Eric is Eric. He, as John pointed out, made
his own bed. Incidentally, Eric called me in September, as he was
leaving and told me straightforward that he didn't blame me for what
ultimately caused him to leave. We're fine.
Greg? If you mean Dene, he was a charter member of the C-List, and as
I remember took issue with you at times. Until he was asked to leave
the group. But he'll probably say that he was planning to leave
before that. Just like he was not planning to go to RSG-NW before he
was asked not to come. LOL.
George Hibbard was a terrible spammer...remember that Eric, himself,
was very, very vocal about his duplicity and spamming. He deserved
the flak that was given him, and it didn't all come from one area.
The group didn't go down, you were just pissed that you weren't
included. Dene himself laughed about that. Hegemony? Get serious.
Show me one iota of it being possible for any person, or group, to
exert authority over RSG. That never was an aim, and you damn well
know it. That's the lie that you keep telling, and believing.
You just never got over it.
bk
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 04:32:34
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:04:29 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> <clip>
> >> The only concerted effort that the c-list ever tried to accomplish
> >> was to call for ignoring one particular over-the-top poster, who was
> >> harming the news group...and that was successful. Other than that it
> >> was no different than any other chat group. Incidentally, we're still
> >> a chat group, and communicate daily. Almost all still lurk RSG too, a
> >> couple of them were just sick of the OT posts though.
> >>
> >> Lately I've enjoyed your posts because it seemed that those days of
> >> hubris were behind you. There was no damage done by that group and
> >> you know it. They certainly had nothing to do with the proliferation
> >> of OT posts, which you blamed earlier for harming RSG.
> >>
> >> bk
> >
> >You have your opinion, and I mine. However, when y'all started with the concerted
> >attacks on legitimate regulars like me and Eric and Greg abd yes, even Goerge
> >Hibbard, who does post a lot to GEA with no harm done, that's when the group went
> >down, and I don't see it coming back up. Used to have a lot more, and a lot
> >nastier trollish posts here, but the group was a lot better because a group the
> >regulars weren't so bend on establishing some sort of hegemony here. It's just a
> >freaking golf DB.
> >
> There was never any concerted attacks. You made outlandish statements
> and were called on them. Eric is Eric. He, as John pointed out, made
> his own bed. Incidentally, Eric called me in September, as he was
> leaving and told me straightforward that he didn't blame me for what
> ultimately caused him to leave. We're fine.
>
> Greg? If you mean Dene, he was a charter member of the C-List, and as
> I remember took issue with you at times. Until he was asked to leave
> the group. But he'll probably say that he was planning to leave
> before that. Just like he was not planning to go to RSG-NW before he
> was asked not to come. LOL.
>
> George Hibbard was a terrible spammer...remember that Eric, himself,
> was very, very vocal about his duplicity and spamming. He deserved
> the flak that was given him, and it didn't all come from one area.
>
> The group didn't go down, you were just pissed that you weren't
> included. Dene himself laughed about that. Hegemony? Get serious.
> Show me one iota of it being possible for any person, or group, to
> exert authority over RSG. That never was an aim, and you damn well
> know it. That's the lie that you keep telling, and believing.
>
> You just never got over it.
> bk
Whatever. What I have or haven't gotten over is irrelevant. It's RSG that has never
recovered. I really don't care all that much. I just call it like I see it. I'm under
no obligation to call it the way you see it.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:46:27
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:32:34 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>Whatever. What I have or haven't gotten over is irrelevant. It's RSG that has never
>recovered. I really don't care all that much. I just call it like I see it. I'm under
>no obligation to call it the way you see it.
Just remember that street goes two ways.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 17:22:12
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 6:38 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> : And Frostback is there for everything else.
>
> You forgot Larry.
I wish!
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 17:07:58
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 4:51 pm, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:27:22 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
> >togethers.
>
> A decline? There may have been a decline in the ones you attend.
> IIRC, you've only been to a couple? Ohio once, you hosted one or two
> and perhaps attended few others.
>
> There was an inaugural NC and DC last year. There was the first So-Cal
> about three weeks ago. Pittsburgh, Hershey, NW, Ohio, and Cincinnati
> have been going on every year for at least 10 years. I know that I
> had a number of first time attendees last year and Thor did as well at
> Ohio.
Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
SoCal tournament actually happen? How many attended? Scott posted
about RSG-NW...no response. I don't doubt you and Thor's tournaments
do well, but how many of the 1st time attendees are RSG posters?
Isn't it more accurate to say they are friends of a regular attendee,
yours perhaps?
> I can see the analogy of RSG being a 19th hole. I don't much enjoy
> talking politics with people from both sides who are unable/unwilling
> to have an actual exchange of ideas instead of just yelling
> accusations at each other. That's why I don't talk politics here.
I don't blame you. However, there was extensive discussion about
religion and surprisingly enough, a number of people exchanged views
without insults or brilliant barbs like...... "when you get your head
out of your ass."
This group is capable of civil exchanges. IMO, if people were to
suddenly quit biting the Larry baits, you'd see a lot more of this
civil discussions in all arenas of life.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:05:11
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 24 Feb 2007 17:07:58 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey.
Why? Does the event have to be attended by RSG regulars to be
considered legit? With all of the handles/anonymous posters you could
never know who posts and who doesn't.
>Did the SoCal tournament actually happen? How many attended?
Yep and why does it matter?
> Scott posted
>about RSG-NW...no response. I don't doubt you and Thor's tournaments
>do well, but how many of the 1st time attendees are RSG posters?
>Isn't it more accurate to say they are friends of a regular attendee,
>yours perhaps?
I looked back at the past years' attendees at Cincy. Easily more than
half of them I get to see only once or twice per year and only at RSG
events. Of those, only two or three would I really consider close
friends. The rest are all acquaintances who come to play golf,
socialize, and have fun. I've gotten a number of emails from lurkers
who don't post expressing interest about my event. I guess I don't
understand why the events are declining when more people attend every
year.
>> I can see the analogy of RSG being a 19th hole. I don't much enjoy
>> talking politics with people from both sides who are unable/unwilling
>> to have an actual exchange of ideas instead of just yelling
>> accusations at each other. That's why I don't talk politics here.
>
>
>This group is capable of civil exchanges. IMO, if people were to
>suddenly quit biting the Larry baits, you'd see a lot more of this
>civil discussions in all arenas of life.
>
I agree on that one.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 03:02:14
From: muk
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
O
>
>Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the
>SoCal tournament actually happen? How many attended? Scott posted
>about RSG-NW...no response. I don't doubt you and Thor's tournaments
>do well, but how many of the 1st time attendees are RSG posters?
>Isn't it more accurate to say they are friends of a regular attendee,
>yours perhaps?
>
I haven't posted here in more than 4 months. Decided to read to see
whats up. Doesn't look like I missed much. FTR, RSG-SoCal was a big
success. RSG-NW is almost full, and I will be there for a first ever
RSG event . Wewt!
Must say, I miss you Aussies and should come back to read Annika's
posts, off topic or otherwise. I like wit and balls, although I am not
so sure now after having written that :P
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 18:31:16
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 24, 5:24 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au >
wrote:
> WW wrote:
> > I looked at this guys stats on PGA.com.....there non existent. Guy is
> > shooting lights out & was very cool w/ Tiger. I kinda laughed....Tiger
> > made him put a gimme & in the end he made tiger finish off a little
> > one - maybe on 18.
>
> "Nick O'Hern is the most annoying of players because he has the funky
> practice rehearsal, and a somewhat ungainly swing accentuated by the
> fact he is left-handed. Worse for his opponents is he hits relatively
> short by modern standards but, like Jim Furyk, he rarely misses a shot,
> he has a short game to die for and emotionally he gives absolutely
> nothing away."
Skinny O'Thin caught Tiger on a good day. For the first seven holes
Tiger played like a 10 'capper w/ a debilitating hangover - ugly, ugly
golf. Credit to O'Narexia for just hanging on for dear life, but
Tiger stepped on his own dick on 19 to lose this one...I don't buy the
ball k call, BTW. Anyway, had Tigs played even his B game, Slim
would've been on the first available Quantas red eye out of Arizona.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 16:26:00
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On 24 Feb 2007 18:31:16 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I don't buy the
>ball k call, BTW.
You think Tiger would lie about that? It's pretty easy to tell the
difference between a push and a deviation caused by a ball k, and
he had no way of knowing that TGC didn't have a camera on the line.
Plus he (as usual) was not hesitant in criticizing himself for poor
play on several other holes. And saying it was a ball k rather
than a spike k meant it was his fault, anyway, because he could
have fixed the ball k.
Tiger should have made that putt, but he never should have let
Skeletor win a hole anyway. He lost that match in the early holes,
not on 19.
And if he wanted to keep his PGA streak alive, he should have gone
down to Mexico and beaten Fred Funk. What a joke.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:07:58
From: Ezran
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On 24 Feb 2007 18:31:16 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Feb 24, 5:24 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au>
>wrote:
>> WW wrote:
>> > I looked at this guys stats on PGA.com.....there non existent. Guy is
>> > shooting lights out & was very cool w/ Tiger. I kinda laughed....Tiger
>> > made him put a gimme & in the end he made tiger finish off a little
>> > one - maybe on 18.
>>
>> "Nick O'Hern is the most annoying of players because he has the funky
>> practice rehearsal, and a somewhat ungainly swing accentuated by the
>> fact he is left-handed. Worse for his opponents is he hits relatively
>> short by modern standards but, like Jim Furyk, he rarely misses a shot,
>> he has a short game to die for and emotionally he gives absolutely
>> nothing away."
>
>Skinny O'Thin caught Tiger on a good day. For the first seven holes
>Tiger played like a 10 'capper w/ a debilitating hangover - ugly, ugly
>golf. Credit to O'Narexia for just hanging on for dear life, but
>Tiger stepped on his own dick on 19 to lose this one...I don't buy the
>ball k call, BTW. Anyway, had Tigs played even his B game, Slim
>would've been on the first available Quantas red eye out of Arizona.
I'd like to see the effect of the ball k. Too bad they didn't have
many cameras covering the tournament. I think there was no blimp, but
there were some high overhead shots on the final match.
Heck Tiger losing sucks, especially after a great comeback, and on the
18th. I can't believe he didn't even touch the hole on the 19th. I
think I believe him. There's no way he would not have at least touched
the hole there. Careless of him not to have checked for the ballk.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 16:39:32
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 3:59 pm, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au >
wrote:
> Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
> off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
> e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
> Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
> Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
> simply don't bother.
Bellomy still posts. So does Newell when Larry routinely tosses out
the stinkbait. I truly miss Clary and Newman. However, half your
list are C-listers with an agenda and subsequent actions that hardly
benefited RSG. They couldn't control RSG, so they left, and I'm glad.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 15:41:53
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 2:23 pm, David Geesaman
> If it's off-topic, you (Annika, et al) would at least put OT
> in the subject line. But the nature of these threads is trolling, not
> discussion.
You can usually tell the topic from the header.
How hard is it to skip a thread?
Does your ISP charge you extra for OT posts?
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:36:03
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
annika1980 wrote:
I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
> For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
Yup. And if you ask on GEA you may get responses from people like Dana Upshaw,
Matt Mohi and Tom Wishon, not to mention Tim Hewitt and..... Heck, if you post
to RSG-Ohio you may get resonses from people like Dave Tutleman!
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 15:30:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 4:40 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
>
> I pretty much disagree across the board.
> All of usenet has declined in a similar fashion
> since every goober with a computer started posting. For me it's
> entertaining, but not in any sense serious with respect to golf or people.
>
I agree with most of what you wrote (except the part about you
disagreeing with everything I said).
One of the reasons for posting in a group where you know the posters
is because you can gauge their responses. You are right, most of the
info you get on the internet is 100% wrong. So you need to be able to
separate the truth from the BS. By knowing the people on the group
you get an idea of who knows their stuff.
For example, if you ask a Q. about Operating Systems or Browsers on
any newsgroup you'll get 100 answers, most of which don't even answer
the question. Ask a question about Microsoft Vista and some fool will
pipe up, "You should switch to Linux."
Let's say I want to know about video capture devices. If I go to
rec.video and ask a question, I'll get 100 responses, most of which
are by people who don't have a clue. But I know Randy Brown and know
what he does so if he answers my question I know I can trust his
advice.
Similarly, if you are a newbie and ask a golf swing question on RSG
you might leave saying, "Boy that Hibbard guy sure knows his stuff."
If you stick around awhile your opinion may change, once you know the
personalities who post here.
I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
If I want to know about video I'll ask Randy.
For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
If I wanna know about drinkin beer and farting I'll ask Big Tex.
For advice on the long ball, I'll ask Sparky.
And Frostback is there for everything else.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 09:17:17
From: BAR
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> On Feb 24, 4:40 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>> I pretty much disagree across the board.
>
>> All of usenet has declined in a similar fashion
>> since every goober with a computer started posting. For me it's
>> entertaining, but not in any sense serious with respect to golf or people.
>>
>
> I agree with most of what you wrote (except the part about you
> disagreeing with everything I said).
>
> One of the reasons for posting in a group where you know the posters
> is because you can gauge their responses. You are right, most of the
> info you get on the internet is 100% wrong. So you need to be able to
> separate the truth from the BS. By knowing the people on the group
> you get an idea of who knows their stuff.
>
> For example, if you ask a Q. about Operating Systems or Browsers on
> any newsgroup you'll get 100 answers, most of which don't even answer
> the question. Ask a question about Microsoft Vista and some fool will
> pipe up, "You should switch to Linux."
>
> Let's say I want to know about video capture devices. If I go to
> rec.video and ask a question, I'll get 100 responses, most of which
> are by people who don't have a clue. But I know Randy Brown and know
> what he does so if he answers my question I know I can trust his
> advice.
>
> Similarly, if you are a newbie and ask a golf swing question on RSG
> you might leave saying, "Boy that Hibbard guy sure knows his stuff."
> If you stick around awhile your opinion may change, once you know the
> personalities who post here.
>
> I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
> If I want to know about video I'll ask Randy.
> For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
> If I wanna know about drinkin beer and farting I'll ask Big Tex.
> For advice on the long ball, I'll ask Sparky.
> And Frostback is there for everything else.
No fair, you have recycled this post to its limit.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:38:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
: If I want to know about video I'll ask Randy.
: For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
: If I wanna know about drinkin beer and farting I'll ask Big Tex.
: For advice on the long ball, I'll ask Sparky.
: And Frostback is there for everything else.
You forgot Larry.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:56:25
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3st769I1tiN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
> : If I want to know about video I'll ask Randy.
> : For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
> : If I wanna know about drinkin beer and farting I'll ask Big Tex.
> : For advice on the long ball, I'll ask Sparky.
> : And Frostback is there for everything else.
>
> You forgot Larry.
If I want to know the truth, I reverse everything LLLarry says.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:27:22
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Dene wrote:
>
> I read your post twice. Reread Bret's. What specific points of his
> do you disagree with?
Snippit...
OK, here goes!
" The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
because there are so many more options these days. I think you'll find
this true of most every newsgroup".
Not true. Some have grown. GEA for example. There's a reason why, and RSG is the
polar opposite.
"Also, there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing golf that wants
to. And the reason you see even the folks who usually rag on off-
topic posts (like Pflum) jump in on the political threads is because
that is what interests them at that moment. Also, it's Winter time in
many places and so there's not much golf to talk about except Tiger.
I'm a golfer (or at least I used to be) who is bored with golf right
now, and I suspect there are more folks like me out there who used to
contribute more."
Most of the people who post here golf very little if at all. People who golf a
lot don't post here. The people who do post here get ticked off if you talk
about golfing too much.
"I think that RSG has always mostly been about the community, rather
than just talking golf. People come there not to hear what some
anonymous person thinks of Tiger Woods or George Bush. They come to
RSG to hear what the regulars there think of them."
People who worry about what other people think of them do post here a lot, and
they want to create the fantasies here, and enforce them. You also get the
antisocial schizo activity of taking real actions against the interests of
people becasue of what they say here, as if what is said here is of any great
relevance.
"It is about personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing
number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?"
...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
togethers. I, at least, have never had any problem whatsoever finding groups to
golf with right here where I live. It's just a matter of being whoever you are
and enjoying the golf for what it is, recreation.
"Have you ever posted on some of the political newsgroups? There are
thousands of posts there and you'll be lucky to get 2 replies to a
post before everyone has moved on to the next thing."
Posting to get a reply = trolling. Speaks for itself, and that's what RSG is
about for a lot of the posts here.
"There is no discussion like there is at our own little "19th Hole." And that
is
exactly what RSG is ... it is a place where golfers gather to talk
about whatever is on their minds, whether is is golf or something
else. You wouldn't expect every conversation at your golf clubhouse to
be about golf, and you'd look pretty foolish walking around telling
people that they could only talk golf there.
You might even get your ass whipped.
At my course there is much more talk about football, NASCAR, and
politics than golf.
My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
respond to them."
Rubbish. If people talked in the 19th hole like they do here, there'd be a lot
of fights in the 19th hole. You can't claim to be something you are not in the
19th hole. Not much happening in most 19th holes anymore anyways.
Very few people here can intelligently discuss anything on any topic here
because most current posters are as poorly informed on say politics as they are
on golf. All they can do is parrot some party line or another. There still are
some real people here, like Wm. Clark, for example. I, at least, can seriously
disagree with him on politics, foir example, and discuss those differences
without getting into the idiot personal attacks and lame attempts at "humorous"
put downs. Dr. Clark is far from the norm here though. He posts as himself, for
example.
"RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
and become the regulars."
RSG is mostly anonymous trolls these days, and their numbers are growing. The
golfers, clubmakers and instructors have long gone. The "regulars" are pretty
much all phoneys. RSG is dead if you want meaningful discussion of golf.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 19:51:41
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:27:22 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
>togethers.
A decline? There may have been a decline in the ones you attend.
IIRC, you've only been to a couple? Ohio once, you hosted one or two
and perhaps attended few others.
There was an inaugural NC and DC last year. There was the first So-Cal
about three weeks ago. Pittsburgh, Hershey, NW, Ohio, and Cincinnati
have been going on every year for at least 10 years. I know that I
had a number of first time attendees last year and Thor did as well at
Ohio.
I can see the analogy of RSG being a 19th hole. I don't much enjoy
talking politics with people from both sides who are unable/unwilling
to have an actual exchange of ideas instead of just yelling
accusations at each other. That's why I don't talk politics here.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 18:44:38
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 7:48 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We all have our strong and weak points. I personally don't want to
> > associate with anyone who is more interested about gossiping and
> > playing idiot social games than playing golf. I prefer to avoid such
> > fools in any event. However with golf, I just like to golf. It's
> > nothing personal. If some friendships develop, so be it, but it is not
> > a requirement in any sense, and certainly not a requirement for
> > respect from me. Anyone idiot enough to politic about this or that
> > person with respect to something like RSG (like sending emails around
> > running someone down, for whatever reason) represents the kind of
> > person I would avoid without reservation, regardless. And I've seen
> > all this stuff happen here; chalk it up to experience.
>
> > Neither myself, nor Eric, nor Ken are anyone who is in any sense
> > difficult to deal with, and anyone who cannot enjoy the company of
> > Eric or Ken definately has a problem.
> > They are both fine people, and while trolls are here to get at anyone,
> > legitimate posters whould be able to live with the various personality
> > quirks of other decent people. Not being able to do so indicates the
> > last adjective of the previous sentance is misapplied.
>
> Well said, Rob, especially these paragraphs. Over the years, it's
> been fun to watch you play with these guys. They try to flatter you,
> insult you, wreck your tournament, etc. and yet you stay above it,
> never afraid to speak your mind, without rancor.
>
> Good show!
>
> -Greg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the compliment. Not much point being if you can't speak for
yourself on something like this! With luck we'll be able to get up
there this year and maybe get together with you for a dinner or
something like that at least. I HAVE to go to Alberta this year for
sure.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 17:48:49
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
>
> We all have our strong and weak points. I personally don't want to
> associate with anyone who is more interested about gossiping and
> playing idiot social games than playing golf. I prefer to avoid such
> fools in any event. However with golf, I just like to golf. It's
> nothing personal. If some friendships develop, so be it, but it is not
> a requirement in any sense, and certainly not a requirement for
> respect from me. Anyone idiot enough to politic about this or that
> person with respect to something like RSG (like sending emails around
> running someone down, for whatever reason) represents the kind of
> person I would avoid without reservation, regardless. And I've seen
> all this stuff happen here; chalk it up to experience.
>
> Neither myself, nor Eric, nor Ken are anyone who is in any sense
> difficult to deal with, and anyone who cannot enjoy the company of
> Eric or Ken definately has a problem.
> They are both fine people, and while trolls are here to get at anyone,
> legitimate posters whould be able to live with the various personality
> quirks of other decent people. Not being able to do so indicates the
> last adjective of the previous sentance is misapplied.
Well said, Rob, especially these paragraphs. Over the years, it's
been fun to watch you play with these guys. They try to flatter you,
insult you, wreck your tournament, etc. and yet you stay above it,
never afraid to speak your mind, without rancor.
Good show!
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:56:29
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 2:27 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote
>
>
>
> > Can't disagree with you there, although Randy has
> > laid some heavy crap on me for no real reason.
>
> Heavy crap?
>
> Quote it.
You've participated in several of the bullying thread of YKW's. It's
really no big deal to me, but not that many people really got into
that. Of course you are no permanently set up for a low 185 yard shot
out of a grassy lie IN THE WOODS by any decent player, and IMHO any
decent player can make that shot. One day, perhaps I might have some
fun with that.
In any event, there are several threads where you have contributed to
the bullying, and it's just a fact of history to me.
>
> Eric, I'm not so sure about. He and I have our own unique issues, and for
> now, I'd just as soon let sleeping dogs lie and not revist the past there.
> But he's probably the only one in RSG I'd be on the fence about playing golf
> with. But even with Eric, I'd be the first to admit that whenever he has
> hosted me at his club or at one of his events, he's been nothing but a
> perfect gentleman and an accommodating host in every way imaginable. I've
> said that on numerous occasions, even in the face of our past battles. I
> would like to think he'd say the same of me.
People bait Eric, and get the OTT response. Similar to Ken Pitts, both
of whom have also been bullied by the YKW's of this group. Anyone who
knows Eric knows what kind of a person he is, and that speaks more
than anything about the people who play games with him here. Same goes
for Ken Pitts. I love the twits who claim Ken is a racist!
We all have our strong and weak points. I personally don't want to
associate with anyone who is more interested about gossiping and
playing idiot social games than playing golf. I prefer to avoid such
fools in any event. However with golf, I just like to golf. It's
nothing personal. If some friendships develop, so be it, but it is not
a requirement in any sense, and certainly not a requirement for
respect from me. Anyone idiot enough to politic about this or that
person with respect to something like RSG (like sending emails around
running someone down, for whatever reason) represents the kind of
person I would avoid without reservation, regardless. And I've seen
all this stuff happen here; chalk it up to experience.
Neither myself, nor Eric, nor Ken are anyone who is in any sense
difficult to deal with, and anyone who cannot enjoy the company of
Eric or Ken definately has a problem.
They are both fine people, and while trolls are here to get at anyone,
legitimate posters whould be able to live with the various personality
quirks of other decent people. Not being able to do so indicates the
last adjective of the previous sentance is misapplied.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:29:22
From: larry
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
If you want to learn whats wrong with RSG, simply look at the list of
posters in any typical day. You will see DOZENS of posts in every
thread are made by a small clique of sickos. RSG is no longer about
golf, this is their entertainment and they get the most enjoyment from
being abusive, typing low class stuff and then hitting the send
button. They should be ashamed-- but they're not.
Larry
On 28 Feb 2007 15:56:29 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>On Feb 28, 2:27 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> > Can't disagree with you there, although Randy has
>> > laid some heavy crap on me for no real reason.
>>
>> Heavy crap?
>>
>> Quote it.
>
>You've participated in several of the bullying thread of YKW's. It's
>really no big deal to me, but not that many people really got into
>that. Of course you are no permanently set up for a low 185 yard shot
>out of a grassy lie IN THE WOODS by any decent player, and IMHO any
>decent player can make that shot. One day, perhaps I might have some
>fun with that.
>
>In any event, there are several threads where you have contributed to
>the bullying, and it's just a fact of history to me.
>
>>
>> Eric, I'm not so sure about. He and I have our own unique issues, and for
>> now, I'd just as soon let sleeping dogs lie and not revist the past there.
>> But he's probably the only one in RSG I'd be on the fence about playing golf
>> with. But even with Eric, I'd be the first to admit that whenever he has
>> hosted me at his club or at one of his events, he's been nothing but a
>> perfect gentleman and an accommodating host in every way imaginable. I've
>> said that on numerous occasions, even in the face of our past battles. I
>> would like to think he'd say the same of me.
>
>People bait Eric, and get the OTT response. Similar to Ken Pitts, both
>of whom have also been bullied by the YKW's of this group. Anyone who
>knows Eric knows what kind of a person he is, and that speaks more
>than anything about the people who play games with him here. Same goes
>for Ken Pitts. I love the twits who claim Ken is a racist!
>
>We all have our strong and weak points. I personally don't want to
>associate with anyone who is more interested about gossiping and
>playing idiot social games than playing golf. I prefer to avoid such
>fools in any event. However with golf, I just like to golf. It's
>nothing personal. If some friendships develop, so be it, but it is not
>a requirement in any sense, and certainly not a requirement for
>respect from me. Anyone idiot enough to politic about this or that
>person with respect to something like RSG (like sending emails around
>running someone down, for whatever reason) represents the kind of
>person I would avoid without reservation, regardless. And I've seen
>all this stuff happen here; chalk it up to experience.
>
>Neither myself, nor Eric, nor Ken are anyone who is in any sense
>difficult to deal with, and anyone who cannot enjoy the company of
>Eric or Ken definately has a problem.
>They are both fine people, and while trolls are here to get at anyone,
>legitimate posters whould be able to live with the various personality
>quirks of other decent people. Not being able to do so indicates the
>last adjective of the previous sentance is misapplied.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 20:41:08
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:ud7cu25cpdiff0thoatcirqrgqn0hknf9r@4ax.com...
> If you want to learn whats wrong with RSG, simply look at the list of
> posters in any typical day. You will see DOZENS of posts in every
> thread are made by a small clique of sickos. RSG is no longer about
> golf, this is their entertainment and they get the most enjoyment from
> being abusive, typing low class stuff and then hitting the send
> button. They should be ashamed-- but they're not.
>
>
> Larry
>
I remember something I learned as a child, it was a subtle lesson yet so
pertinent to what goes on here......
"It takes one to know one"
This was soon followed by "He who smelt it dealt it" which I believe also
might be apropos.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 21:25:55
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Steve S wrote:
> This was soon followed by "He who smelt it dealt it" which I believe
> also might be apropos.
How about: he who denied it, supplied it.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:35:22
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 1:19 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:42 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
> > people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
> > difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
> > personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
> > see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks.
>
> Any psychic wounds Eric suffered from those attacks were self-induced.
> I don't recall anyone, even me, verbally assaulting him the way he
> went after me and Randy. Rest assured that Randy will never forget
> it. No big deal to me, though.
> I still see the positive in Eric and like you, I wouldn't hesitate to
> play golf with him.
> Oh wait, didn't you guys have a little spat after that Florida event?
>
> My point is that people take this shit too seriously. I'm as guilty
> as anyone.
> The only difference is that I get the fuck over it.
> Hell, I'll play golf with anybody. Obviously:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/49468280http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34286454http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/22421858
Can't disagree with you there, although Randy has laid some heavy crap
on me for no real reason. At least Eric had a real reason. I'd golf
with just about anyone here; certainly Randy or Eric. There are a few
people here I wouldn't go near though. there's taking it too seriously
and there's engaging in overt actsd agianst the interests of other
people. If they'll act out based on virtual interactions, I'd rather
avoid any direct interactions!
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:27:47
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote
>
> Can't disagree with you there, although Randy has
> laid some heavy crap on me for no real reason.
Heavy crap?
Quote it.
I've said some things you didn't like hearing; I'll certainly admit to that.
But whenever I've argued aggressively with you and taken your opinions to
task, I've done so because I felt the ideas you expressed (and sometimes the
manner with which you expressed them, or even what I sometimes perceived as
your motive behind taking such positions) warranted such a vituperative
response.
But be fair, Rob. You know full well that I've also credited you at times
for being right when I thought you deserved that, too.
So I don't think I've been heavy handed at all. I think I've been
extraordinarily even-handed. Certain more than most people, who, once they
turn on an individual, are never willing to acknowledge when that individual
gets something right. You have to admit, I've done that with you. Many
times.
I've just done the same thing you claim you've been doing -- I've called it
as I've seen it.
You sure don't seem to have a problem with that when you're the one doing
it.
> At least Eric had a real reason. I'd golf with just about
> anyone here; certainly Randy or Eric.
As I would gladly play golf with you, any time, anywhere. I've always found
you to be pleasant company, and I've said so on numerous occasions for all
to see in RSG. I think for me to say that about you despite our
disagreements speaks volumes to anyone who's aware of those disagreements.
I also enjoy watching your smooth, rhythmic golf swing, something else I've
mentioned more than a few times here. I've always thought your golf swing
ought to produce better scores than does. Certainly, it was well on its way
to whipping my sorry ass when we last played together at the RTJ Trail
outside of Montgomery a few years ago when an incoming thunderstorm forced
everyone off the course and cut our round short after just a few holes.
Eric, I'm not so sure about. He and I have our own unique issues, and for
now, I'd just as soon let sleeping dogs lie and not revist the past there.
But he's probably the only one in RSG I'd be on the fence about playing golf
with. But even with Eric, I'd be the first to admit that whenever he has
hosted me at his club or at one of his events, he's been nothing but a
perfect gentleman and an accommodating host in every way imaginable. I've
said that on numerous occasions, even in the face of our past battles. I
would like to think he'd say the same of me.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:48:43
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 2:19 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:42 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
> > people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
> > difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
> > personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
> > see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks.
>
> Any psychic wounds Eric suffered from those attacks were self-induced.
> I don't recall anyone, even me, verbally assaulting him the way he
> went after me and Randy. Rest assured that Randy will never forget
> it. No big deal to me, though.
> I still see the positive in Eric and like you, I wouldn't hesitate to
> play golf with him.
> Oh wait, didn't you guys have a little spat after that Florida event?
>
> My point is that people take this shit too seriously. I'm as guilty
> as anyone.
> The only difference is that I get the fuck over it.
> Hell, I'll play golf with anybody. Obviously:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/49468280http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34286454http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/22421858
Wow, I've got to hang out with these guys more. I'm starting to feel
a little bit old and it doesn't look like more than three of you guys
are under 50 !
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 11:19:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 1:42 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
>
> Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
> people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
> difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
> personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
> see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks.
Any psychic wounds Eric suffered from those attacks were self-induced.
I don't recall anyone, even me, verbally assaulting him the way he
went after me and Randy. Rest assured that Randy will never forget
it. No big deal to me, though.
I still see the positive in Eric and like you, I wouldn't hesitate to
play golf with him.
Oh wait, didn't you guys have a little spat after that Florida event?
My point is that people take this shit too seriously. I'm as guilty
as anyone.
The only difference is that I get the fuck over it.
Hell, I'll play golf with anybody. Obviously:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/49468280
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34286454
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/22421858
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 18:21:03
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26-Feb-2007, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> My point is that people take this shit too seriously.
What an understatement, in the usual Annika style!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 10:42:06
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 11:13 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 09:03:43 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 26, 7:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> >> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
> >> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
> >> another news group.
> >> --
>
> >I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
> >commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
> >I genuinely feel sorry for you.
>
> Rob, every time I start to think that you're sane you post something
> idiotic like this. You absolutely brought it up...that is what
> commenting on it means. Surely you aren't that senile. Damn, I'm
> probably 10 years older than you and it's clear to me.
>
> Just in case you forgot. Here's your "comment", now try to spin that
> a comment isn't bringing something up.
>
> Pllum wrote:
> > Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> > he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> > did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> > all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>
> You responded.
>
> >>Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Bret.
Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks...as he has a bit
in the photo group, BTW. In any event, Pflum brought up the issue of
judging the relative "worth" of Bret's posts, not me. I just added
comment.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:51:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 10:42:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>> Pllum wrote:
>> > Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
>> > he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
>> > did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
>> > all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>>
>> You responded.
>>
>> >>Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Bret.
>
>Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
>people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
>difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
>personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
>see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks...as he has a bit
>in the photo group, BTW. In any event, Pflum brought up the issue of
>judging the relative "worth" of Bret's posts, not me. I just added
>comment.
Unbelievable!!!! Read it again Rob. You denied that you brought up
the subject of the photography group. PERIOD. That was the crux of
your denial. For heaven's sake, can't you just admit that you
erred...just once? The general system that you're using is to deny,
deny, deny, and lose the string of posts. That's where you go wrong.
Usenet has a memory, and even x-archive doesn't clear it.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:27:22 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >...or maybe they have no life where they live? I see a decline in these get
> >togethers.
>
> A decline? There may have been a decline in the ones you attend.
> IIRC, you've only been to a couple? Ohio once, you hosted one or two
> and perhaps attended few others.
>
> There was an inaugural NC and DC last year. There was the first So-Cal
> about three weeks ago. Pittsburgh, Hershey, NW, Ohio, and Cincinnati
> have been going on every year for at least 10 years. I know that I
> had a number of first time attendees last year and Thor did as well at
> Ohio.
A couple of people get together for a round in DC. Big Whoop! Most of the people
at the so called RSG events contribute little to nothing to RSG. If you want to
get together with a few friends and call it RSG Cincinnati, go ahead. It doesn't
mean anything other than that. It's no different than me getting together with a
few friends around here...and you can be sure I wouldn't consider mentioning
such a thing at any time on any DB until maybe after the fact. Because of people
derived from RSG directly interfering with events I have organized, I don't
speak at all of anything I organize on this DB. You also managed to run Eric
off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
well...because of what?
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:34:10
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 5:43 pm, "Steve S" <n...@fughettaboutit.com > wrote:
> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172512073.249400.268210@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ah yes....B.O.B. claiming to represent the masses, trying to issue a
> > directive to the cronies.
>
> > -Greg
>
> And you represent the whiny little girls. Good job, keep up the good work.
> The girl scouts appreciate it.
So does your hero, zero.
-Greg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 06:19:19
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172543650.663229.100510@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 5:43 pm, "Steve S" <n...@fughettaboutit.com> wrote:
>> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172512073.249400.268210@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Ah yes....B.O.B. claiming to represent the masses, trying to issue a
>> > directive to the cronies.
>>
>> > -Greg
>>
>> And you represent the whiny little girls. Good job, keep up the good
>> work.
>> The girl scouts appreciate it.
>
> So does your hero, zero.
>
> -Greg
>
Don't forget your tampons.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:47:53
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 9:38 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:55 -0500, John van der Pflum
>
> <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> >On 26 Feb 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>You're one to bitch about gossip. When Eric called, was there not a
> >>full report to your cronies? And of course there was a certain
> >>breakfast meeting....
>
> >>-Greg
>
> >.... that has been highly publicized here.
>
> Not only that, but this twerp is actually pointing at me...who had
> nothing to do with either. Ignore him John, like everyone else does
> here.
> --
Ah yes....B.O.B. claiming to represent the masses, trying to issue a
directive to the cronies.
-Greg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 20:43:51
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172512073.249400.268210@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Ah yes....B.O.B. claiming to represent the masses, trying to issue a
> directive to the cronies.
>
> -Greg
>
And you represent the whiny little girls. Good job, keep up the good work.
The girl scouts appreciate it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:26:09
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45E0E5C9.C36C3040@att.net...
> You also managed to run Eric
> off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it
> as
> well...because of what?
>
Pflum did what?
I don't think John ever attacked anybody here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 16:15:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:26:09 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>Pflum did what?
>I don't think John ever attacked anybody here.
Some of us are dead to him though.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 13:06:41
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:15:51 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:26:09 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Pflum did what?
>>I don't think John ever attacked anybody here.
>
>Some of us are dead to him though.
Great! Now ghosts are participating in this thread!!!! Argh.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 21:53:51
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>You also managed to run Eric
>off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
>well...because of what?
I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving. I can
only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do much to
endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika --
who he called a friend.
Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
Eric?
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 03:08:17
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
--------------ADA24C472861CAD3719F4ABF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You also managed to run Eric
> >off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
> >well...because of what?
>
> I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving. I can
> only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
> But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do much to
> endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika --
> who he called a friend.
>
> Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
> Eric?
>
Yes. A socially mature adult knows better. Eric has a bit of usenet flamer in
him. So what? You saying Brett doesn't? What's the point to "reacting"? Like
mother's around the world have said for generations, if someone, say Mike
Dalecki, were to jump off a cliff, would you follow?
How about a bet! I'll bet 10 bucks you would! ;^)
--------------ADA24C472861CAD3719F4ABF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >
<p >John van der Pflum wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton
<DBID@att.net >
<br >wrote:
<p >>You also managed to run Eric
<br >>off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job
of it as
<br >>well...because of what?
<p >I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving.
I can
<br >only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
<br >But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do
much to
<br >endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika
--
<br >who he called a friend.
<p >Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
<br >Eric?
<br ><a href="http://www.rsgcincinnati.com"></a> </blockquote>
Yes. A socially mature adult knows better. Eric has a bit of usenet flamer
in him. So what? You saying Brett doesn't? What's the point to "reacting"?
Like mother's around the world have said for generations, if someone, say
Mike Dalecki, were to jump off a cliff, would you follow?
<p >How about a bet! I'll bet 10 bucks you would! ;^)
<br > </html>
--------------ADA24C472861CAD3719F4ABF--
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 13:34:11
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 12:42 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
>
> >> No sweat. I didn't buy his response anyway.
> >> Showme- Hide quoted text -
> > Then go kiss BK's canary ass. You deserve him.
>
> > -Greg
>
> Now there's an articulate and brilliantly crafted rebuttal.
>
> How can anyone possibly trump that?
>
> As usual, when it comes to a battle of wits, Dene is only half-armed.
>
> Randy
You're right. When it comes to kissing BK's ass, I should have
directed the proxy-pal to you....the master.
-Greg
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 16:50:00
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 4:38 pm, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
>
> Strauss and Dalecki. There's a nighte combination!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Imagine being on a mailing list with them....having their nonsense
flood your inbox everyday. Especially Strauss....gobs of gossip and
gibberish.
-Greg
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 16:38:45
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:54:41 -0600, "Showme" <Sho...@youbet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1172514865.416294.74680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 26, 9:03 am, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
> >>> commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
> >>> I genuinely feel sorry for you
>
> >> Me too....I truly pity him. He's retired and yet his life is spent on
> >> a computer, running his crony network, acting out a sick Tony Soprano
> >> fantasy.
>
> >> Please God. Put me in the ground if my life becomes this meaningless.
>
> >> -Greg
>
> >I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
> >does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life on
> >the computer matches his.
> >Showme
>
> Since I don't see his posts, except for those that are answered, I
> have no idea how many of mine that he attacks. However, it shows his
> limited mentality. Thanks for pointing this out, but since I don't
> see many responses to him, if he does any other posting, very few here
> pays any attention to what he says.
>
> Unless you're a new lurker you know that he's been ostracized by more
> than one group here. For a long time he dogged a poster named Peter
> Straus, and another; Mike Dalecki. Now he's zeroed in on me. The
> thing that the three of us have in common is that we were part of a
> "chat group" that tossed his ass out, and didn't let him forget it.
Strauss and Dalecki. There's a nighte combination!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 19:38:03
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1172536724.948791.90530@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Strauss and Dalecki. There's a nighte combination!
>
You weave blindsided shots against Mike Dalecki a lot.
It seems clinical.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 04:34:12
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
glfnaz wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1172536724.948791.90530@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > Strauss and Dalecki. There's a nighte combination!
> >
>
> You weave blindsided shots against Mike Dalecki a lot.
> It seems clinical.
Throw in Greer and it's the threesome from hell...if you survive the
meal.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:47:37
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 16:38:45 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Strauss and Dalecki. There's a nighte combination!
Two of the nicest, stest, gentlemen I've ever met.
Hell, Rob, you would fit that description too....if you just didn't
live revisionist history. :-)
P.S. Plus, Dalecki is playing good golf. He visited me last year and
shot 74 (par 71) on my club's course...having never seen it before.
I would think that there might be only 3 or 4 on RSG that could do
that.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:54:12
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 2:45 pm, "Showme" <Sho...@youbet.net > wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ign6u2tmo5qa2c41pa15l3q79qh4nhgtc7@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:54:41 -0600, "Showme" <Sho...@youbet.net>
> > wrote:
> >>I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
> >>does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life
> >>on
> >>the computer matches his.
> >>Showme
>
> > Since I don't see his posts, except for those that are answered, I
> > have no idea how many of mine that he attacks. However, it shows his
> > limited mentality. Thanks for pointing this out, but since I don't
> > see many responses to him, if he does any other posting, very few here
> > pays any attention to what he says.
You wish.
> > Unless you're a new lurker you know that he's been ostracized by more
> > than one group here. For a long time he dogged a poster named Peter
> > Straus, and another; Mike Dalecki. Now he's zeroed in on me. The
> > thing that the three of us have in common is that we were part of a
> > "chat group" that tossed his ass out, and didn't let him forget it.
Peter Strauss. Puhleeeeze.
It's not the fact that you're a liar....it's amazing how others,
except your ex-wives, let you get away with it. Perhaps that's why
you need internet friendships.
> > ___,
> > \o
> >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:42:58
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote
>>
>> No sweat. I didn't buy his response anyway.
>> Showme- Hide quoted text -
> Then go kiss BK's canary ass. You deserve him.
>
> -Greg
Now there's an articulate and brilliantly crafted rebuttal.
How can anyone possibly trump that?
As usual, when it comes to a battle of wits, Dene is only half-armed.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 11:06:28
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 12:51 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 10:42:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Pllum wrote:
> >> > Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> >> > he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> >> > did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> >> > all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>
> >> You responded.
>
> >> >>Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Bret.
>
> >Exactly. Pflum gave an opinion of Bret v Eric. Fine by me, but other
> >people think differently of Bret. I personally don't see much
> >difference in the posting style of Bret v Eric. Eric was more
> >personal,and was directly attacked more. It would be interesting to
> >see how Bret would respond to those kinds of attacks...as he has a bit
> >in the photo group, BTW. In any event, Pflum brought up the issue of
> >judging the relative "worth" of Bret's posts, not me. I just added
> >comment.
>
> Unbelievable!!!! Read it again Rob. You denied that you brought up
> the subject of the photography group. PERIOD. That was the crux of
> your denial. For heaven's sake, can't you just admit that you
> erred...just once? The general system that you're using is to deny,
> deny, deny, and lose the string of posts. That's where you go wrong.
> Usenet has a memory, and even x-archive doesn't clear it.
You are obviously going senile. Here's what I denied:
"I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
commented on it."
Make of it what you will.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 19:20:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 11:06:28 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>On Feb 26, 12:51 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 10:42:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
senet has a memory, and even x-archive doesn't clear it.
>
>You are obviously going senile. Here's what I denied:
>
>"I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
>commented on it."
>
>Make of it what you will.
I make of it exactly the same crap that you tried with the "I can hit
the same shot as Tiger" fiasco . You blustered a statement that is
obvious and then tried to spin it in every way you can. Why not just
say " I screwed up'?
Read this without moving your lips; Commenting on something IS
bringing it up.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 08:56:16
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:08:17 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You also managed to run Eric
>> >off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
>> >well...because of what?
>>
>> I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving. I can
>> only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
>> But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do much to
>> endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika --
>> who he called a friend.
>>
>> Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
>> Eric?
>>
>
>Yes. A socially mature adult knows better. Eric has a bit of usenet flamer in
>him. So what? You saying Brett doesn't? What's the point to "reacting"? Like
>mother's around the world have said for generations, if someone, say Mike
>Dalecki, were to jump off a cliff, would you follow?
>
Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
>How about a bet! I'll bet 10 bucks you would! ;^)
Sorry, you lose. Mail me the $10. :-
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:18:28
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:08:17 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >John van der Pflum wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You also managed to run Eric
> >> >off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
> >> >well...because of what?
> >>
> >> I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving. I can
> >> only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
> >> But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do much to
> >> endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika --
> >> who he called a friend.
> >>
> >> Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
> >> Eric?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. A socially mature adult knows better. Eric has a bit of usenet flamer in
> >him. So what? You saying Brett doesn't? What's the point to "reacting"? Like
> >mother's around the world have said for generations, if someone, say Mike
> >Dalecki, were to jump off a cliff, would you follow?
> >
>
> Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:59:31
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> " The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
> because there are so many more options these days. I think you'll find
> this true of most every newsgroup".
>
> Not true. Some have grown. GEA for example. There's a reason why, and RSG is the
> polar opposite.
> RSG is mostly anonymous trolls these days, and their numbers are growing. The
> golfers, clubmakers and instructors have long gone. The "regulars" are pretty
> much all phoneys. RSG is dead if you want meaningful discussion of golf.
RSG is dying for the same reason Usenet is dying ... it's now a
second-rate laissez-faire community with no self or external control.
The attempts at self-regulation by a few got shouted down by people who
thought a bit of 19th-hole chat wouldn't hurt, but Mike Dalecki's broken
windows theory has some validity ... now it's *all* irrelevant 19th hole
chat.
Although my posting time has kedly decreased overall, I spend much
more time now on the Australian discussion board at iseekgolf.com than
here. As an Invision Powerboard site, it has lots of advantages.
1. It's Australian, so I don't get overloaded on the main board with US
political crap.
2. It's categorised. There's separate boards for swing theory,
equipment, general golf discussion, course architecture, favourite golf
courses, as well as off-topic boards for off-topic discussions like "The
Lounge" or "Sports Talk". So you don't have to go where you don't want
to. Advertising is kept to a separate but useful sub-board that provides
a real service. It's got some very genuine discussion with golf
architects, players and ex-caddies.
3. Being moderated, but also not having a loud-mouth American influence,
means the discussion is generally civil and aimed at learning something
rather than blowing your bags and point-scoring. If you read the swing
discussion it's even quite heavy on TGM, but there's none of the
antagonistic crap that went on here. People genuinely want to discuss
the swing with an emphasis on learning, not scoring points or enhancing
their expert status.
4. You can add thumbnail pictures. For example, at present there are
some terrific pictures at present on "dangerous golf holes".
5. The course reviews are great and very helpful for finding courses.
6. You can contact friends, have avatars, and have much better "sig"
lines without any stupid arguments about advertising,
A modern computer user would have to be mad to stick to an unregulated
Usenet newsgroup. Usenet has had its day, and better technology has
taken over.
Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
simply don't bother.
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 19:53:20
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:59:31 GMT, Colin Wilson
<publish@removethis.kyneton.net.au > wrote:
>
>Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls and
>off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past posters
>e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary, Kenny Stultz,
>Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter Strauss, Chris
>Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the FAQ any more),
>simply don't bother.
A couple of those people are still around but you point is well
spoken, Colin.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:14:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:59:31 GMT, Colin Wilson
> <publish@removethis.kyneton.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Aside from the technology, RSG is a lost cause, taken over by trolls
>> and off-topic drivel, and that's why some of the really good past
>> posters e.g. Scott Newell, David Sneddon, Joseph Hall, Dave Clary,
>> Kenny Stultz, Joe Cartpath, Bruce Newman, Teresa Williamson, Peter
>> Strauss, Chris Bellomy and Dan Driscoll (who doesn't even post the
>> FAQ any more), simply don't bother.
>
> A couple of those people are still around but you point is well
> spoken, Colin.
I am going to go out on a limb here by saying that I think the above story
is true for most groups on Usenet. I think the racists and kooks have
finally taken over. Lllarry; though a complete and utter loon, is not the
only freakshow on Usenet.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 18:11:09
From: Tom K
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
NASCAR?
We don't get that channel up this far north...
--Tom <---- who doesn't watch NASCAR, but in his youth had a 1970 Dodge
Charger (sweet)....
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172340119.118230.37460@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
<snip >
> At my course there is much more talk about football, NASCAR, and
> politics than golf.
> My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
> respond to them.
<snip >
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 14:34:56
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 1:40 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> ...snippitt..
>
> I pretty much disagree across the board. I've been posting to usenet
> groups since the late 1980's or so, and other DB's before that. They did
> used to be communities, but now way now. Most of the people who post here
> golf much if at all. David Laviulle hit the nail on the head with this
> sort of group a long time ago; people live out some fantasy. We have the
> great clubmaker who "dosen't like" what Wishon has to say on this or that,
> but doesn't understand simple things like the design if DGSL shafts.
> Laughable. We get the golf swing experts quoting from some book, but
> really have no clue as to the nature of the different swing systenms that
> have come out over the years. You then get a lot of defending of the
> various myths, like the scratch golfers who can't break 80 on a
> recreational layout!
>
> It hasn't always been that way though. The people who are really into golf
> don't come here much. The people who really know clubmaking haven't come
> here for years at all. All of usenet has declined in a similar fashion
> since every goober with a computer started posting. For me it's
> entertaining, but not in any sense serious with respect to golf or people.
>
> RSG, like most usenet groups represents a very antisocial "community" if
> it is a community in any sense at all. Anything that could be good is
> sacrificed for the sake of the phoney online persona.
I read your post twice. Reread Bret's. What specific points of his
do you disagree with?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 17:42:44
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 5:38 pm, "Steve S" <n...@fughettaboutit.com > wrote:
> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172698259.761571.4180@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you let those other people stand up and fend for themselves?
> >> Or
> >> are you meaning to imply by defending them that you don't think they're
> >> intellectually capable of doing so?
>
> > And why don't you let BK stand up and fend for himself. Don't you
> > think he is intellectually capable of doing so?
>
> > Hmmmm......
>
> > -Greg
>
> Nice retort, Hard to argue with logic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you, counselor.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 13:31:00
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> Why don't you let those other people stand up and fend for themselves? Or
> are you meaning to imply by defending them that you don't think they're
> intellectually capable of doing so?
>
And why don't you let BK stand up and fend for himself. Don't you
think he is intellectually capable of doing so?
Hmmmm......
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 20:38:25
From: Steve S
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172698259.761571.4180@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you let those other people stand up and fend for themselves?
>> Or
>> are you meaning to imply by defending them that you don't think they're
>> intellectually capable of doing so?
>>
>
> And why don't you let BK stand up and fend for himself. Don't you
> think he is intellectually capable of doing so?
>
> Hmmmm......
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
Nice retort, Hard to argue with logic.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:18:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 5:20 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> > I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
> > does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life on
> > the computer matches his.
>
> There are distinctions. I play with RSG in my spare time. I don't
> foster internet friendships or participate in crony lists.
Well, no shit. That's because everyone hates you.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:20:43
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 12:54 pm, "Showme" <Sho...@youbet.net > wrote:
> Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172514865.416294.74680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 26, 9:03 am, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
> >> commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
> >> I genuinely feel sorry for you
>
> > Me too....I truly pity him. He's retired and yet his life is spent on
> > a computer, running his crony network, acting out a sick Tony Soprano
> > fantasy.
>
> > Please God. Put me in the ground if my life becomes this meaningless.
>
> > -Greg
>
> I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
> does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life on
> the computer matches his.
> Showme
There are distinctions. I play with RSG in my spare time. I don't
foster internet friendships or participate in crony lists. I don't
feel the need to dictate to others how one posts. I play with BK
because he's got an alligator mouth along with a canary ass. Fun to
play with.
But....I also realize that it gets old so I'm content move on unless
he starts in with the anklebitin or "I don't like your posts, Rob"
crap.
-Greg
Ps. I erred in comparing him to Tony. He's more like Junior.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:40:04
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in
>>
>> I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting
>> he
>> does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life
>> on
>> the computer matches his.
>> Showme
>
> There are distinctions. I play with RSG in my spare time.
Well, you must have a lot of spare time. Because one need only track the
date stamps on your posts to see that you post here almost every day. More
often than not, your posts offer very little in the way of golf content;
they're almost always a snip at someone else.
> I don't foster internet friendships or participate in crony lists.
It's not hard to figure out why -- it's because you don't present a very
likeable persona when all you ever do is take shots at others. It's no
wonder you have so few friends here.
> I don't feel the need to dictate to others how one posts.
Yet that's precisely what you do all the time. Whether it's taking shots at
BK or me or the c-list or anyone who disagrees with you, the essence of what
you are always doing is telling people to behave the way you want them to.
> I play with BK because he's got an alligator mouth along with
> a canary ass. Fun to play with.
So you like playing with Bobby's ass. This is too much information.
> But....I also realize that it gets old so I'm content move on unless
> he starts in with the anklebitin or "I don't like your posts, Rob"
> crap.
So you can tell him how you want him to behave -- exacty what you claim not
to like about his posts.
If indeed you're right about Bobby's MO here (and I take some exception with
it), there's more similarity between the two of you than you're willing to
acknowledge. You do EXACTLY what you accuse him of doing -- rarely offering
golf content, opting instead for defining your online persona with personal
attacks. The only difference is that he does it to you and to people you
like while you do it to him and people he likes. What's the difference?
Why don't you let those other people stand up and fend for themselves? Or
are you meaning to imply by defending them that you don't think they're
intellectually capable of doing so?
We already know you're not.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 21:03:57
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:40:04 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
<clip >
>If indeed you're right about Bobby's MO here (and I take some exception with
>it), there's more similarity between the two of you than you're willing to
>acknowledge. <clip>
Thanks for the "if" and taking some exception Randy. :-)
>Why don't you let those other people stand up and fend for themselves? Or
>are you meaning to imply by defending them that you don't think they're
>intellectually capable of doing so?
>
>We already know you're not.
>
>Randy
--
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 10:34:25
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 9:03 am, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net > wrote:
> I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
> commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
> I genuinely feel sorry for you
Me too....I truly pity him. He's retired and yet his life is spent on
a computer, running his crony network, acting out a sick Tony Soprano
fantasy.
Please God. Put me in the ground if my life becomes this meaningless.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:54:41
From: Showme
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1172514865.416294.74680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 9:03 am, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
>> commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
>> I genuinely feel sorry for you
>
> Me too....I truly pity him. He's retired and yet his life is spent on
> a computer, running his crony network, acting out a sick Tony Soprano
> fantasy.
>
> Please God. Put me in the ground if my life becomes this meaningless.
>
> -Greg
>
I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life on
the computer matches his.
Showme
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 22:33:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:54:41 -0600, "Showme" <Showme@youbet.net >
wrote:
>Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1172514865.416294.74680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 26, 9:03 am, "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
>>> commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
>>> I genuinely feel sorry for you
>>
>> Me too....I truly pity him. He's retired and yet his life is spent on
>> a computer, running his crony network, acting out a sick Tony Soprano
>> fantasy.
>>
>> Please God. Put me in the ground if my life becomes this meaningless.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
>does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life on
>the computer matches his.
>Showme
>
Since I don't see his posts, except for those that are answered, I
have no idea how many of mine that he attacks. However, it shows his
limited mentality. Thanks for pointing this out, but since I don't
see many responses to him, if he does any other posting, very few here
pays any attention to what he says.
Unless you're a new lurker you know that he's been ostracized by more
than one group here. For a long time he dogged a poster named Peter
Straus, and another; Mike Dalecki. Now he's zeroed in on me. The
thing that the three of us have in common is that we were part of a
"chat group" that tossed his ass out, and didn't let him forget it.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 16:45:38
From: Showme
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:ign6u2tmo5qa2c41pa15l3q79qh4nhgtc7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:54:41 -0600, "Showme" <Showme@youbet.net>
> wrote:
>>I'm just a lurker, but you criticize this guy for the amount of posting he
>>does....and make some catty rek about each one. Seems that your life
>>on
>>the computer matches his.
>>Showme
>>
>
> Since I don't see his posts, except for those that are answered, I
> have no idea how many of mine that he attacks. However, it shows his
> limited mentality. Thanks for pointing this out, but since I don't
> see many responses to him, if he does any other posting, very few here
> pays any attention to what he says.
>
> Unless you're a new lurker you know that he's been ostracized by more
> than one group here. For a long time he dogged a poster named Peter
> Straus, and another; Mike Dalecki. Now he's zeroed in on me. The
> thing that the three of us have in common is that we were part of a
> "chat group" that tossed his ass out, and didn't let him forget it.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:03:43
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 7:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
> >> >> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
> >> >> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
>
> >> >...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
> >> >care less.
>
> >> Since you brought this up, it makes you the
> >> 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
>
> >?????
>
> >If you take comment on a group like this as signifying "caring", you must lead a
> >pretty pathetic life. <clip>
>
> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
> another news group.
> --
I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
I genuinely feel sorry for you.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 17:13:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 09:03:43 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>On Feb 26, 7:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
>> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
>> another news group.
>> --
>
>I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
>commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
>I genuinely feel sorry for you.
Rob, every time I start to think that you're sane you post something
idiotic like this. You absolutely brought it up...that is what
commenting on it means. Surely you aren't that senile. Damn, I'm
probably 10 years older than you and it's clear to me.
Just in case you forgot. Here's your "comment", now try to spin that
a comment isn't bringing something up.
Pllum wrote:
> Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.
You responded.
>>Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett.
The fact that you feel sorry for someone that calls you on being
absofuckinglutely wrong speaks volumes. You're the one to be pitied.
It was exactly what I called it....gossip, and you DID bring it up.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:26:24
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:13:40 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>
>absofuckinglutely wrong speaks volumes. You're the one to be pitied.
Nice tmesis.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 17:38:54
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:26:24 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>nice tmesis
An attempt at obfuscation, if nothing else. :-)
--
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 08:04:54
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 26, 5:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
> >> >> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
> >> >> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
>
> >> >...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
> >> >care less.
>
> >> Since you brought this up, it makes you the
> >> 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
>
> >?????
>
> >If you take comment on a group like this as signifying "caring", you must lead a
> >pretty pathetic life. <clip>
>
> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
> another news group.
> --
You're one to bitch about gossip. When Eric called, was there not a
full report to your cronies? And of course there was a certain
breakfast meeting....
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:24:55
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 26 Feb 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>On Feb 26, 5:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> >> Actually, there are only a small handful (3-4) people that I do battle
>> >> >> with on the photo groups. The rest of them "get" me. And some of them
>> >> >> have even helped me in ways that you'll never hear about.
>>
>> >> >...or like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of people, they could
>> >> >care less.
>>
>> >> Since you brought this up, it makes you the
>> >> 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that does care.
>>
>> >?????
>>
>> >If you take comment on a group like this as signifying "caring", you must lead a
>> >pretty pathetic life. <clip>
>>
>> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
>> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
>> another news group.
>> --
>
>You're one to bitch about gossip. When Eric called, was there not a
>full report to your cronies? And of course there was a certain
>breakfast meeting....
>
>-Greg
.... that has been highly publicized here.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 17:38:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:55 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2007 08:04:54 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>You're one to bitch about gossip. When Eric called, was there not a
>>full report to your cronies? And of course there was a certain
>>breakfast meeting....
>>
>>-Greg
>
>.... that has been highly publicized here.
Not only that, but this twerp is actually pointing at me...who had
nothing to do with either. Ignore him John, like everyone else does
here.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 21:40:12
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
...snippitt..
I pretty much disagree across the board. I've been posting to usenet
groups since the late 1980's or so, and other DB's before that. They did
used to be communities, but now way now. Most of the people who post here
golf much if at all. David Laviulle hit the nail on the head with this
sort of group a long time ago; people live out some fantasy. We have the
great clubmaker who "dosen't like" what Wishon has to say on this or that,
but doesn't understand simple things like the design if DGSL shafts.
Laughable. We get the golf swing experts quoting from some book, but
really have no clue as to the nature of the different swing systenms that
have come out over the years. You then get a lot of defending of the
various myths, like the scratch golfers who can't break 80 on a
recreational layout!
It hasn't always been that way though. The people who are really into golf
don't come here much. The people who really know clubmaking haven't come
here for years at all. All of usenet has declined in a similar fashion
since every goober with a computer started posting. For me it's
entertaining, but not in any sense serious with respect to golf or people.
RSG, like most usenet groups represents a very antisocial "community" if
it is a community in any sense at all. Anything that could be good is
sacrificed for the sake of the phoney online persona.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 13:19:39
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
Nice post, Annika - though I disagree with some of what you said.
But, hey, it just wouldn't be a discussion w/o disagreement, eh?
Your "19th Hole" anology is a good one. But, don't you have to play
the round before going to the 19th hole? The point made about OT
clutter often comes from those that haven't contributed to the heart
of the newsgroup (if you subscribe to the notion that RSG is about
golf priily).
I seldom contibute to the OT stuff. And much of the on topic stuff
can quickly get derailed. In short - I make a choice and choose not
to read it. Yet, it does bother me that the ratio of OT to Golf posts
ain't what it used to be.
I hope this changes as the season progresses.
My 2 cents - dug
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 21:41:44
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
In article <1172340119.118230.37460@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
Many would like to stick their heads further up their collective asses instead of facing the political problems as they exist today. Fortunately, this political atmosphere permeates everything, even golf ;-) If the bushies knew that their guy was doing a great job and our country was moving ahead in all facets of administration, business, military et al, they would be more than happy to read more about it, no matter where or how. Unfortunatley, their world of "we love dubya" is confined to AM talk radio with the usual cast of characters like rush limpballs, and hairspray hannity as well as a casual popup from a little doughboy named glenn beck.
To meet reality face to face as they have to do on this group from time to time (whether this is a forum for that or not) is very painful to them. Bottom line, it's pretty obvious from the title of the thread as to the content. If they choose to just read about golf, don't open anything that mentions iraq, bush, impeach, cheney, moron, or neocon. It's self discipline, restraint if you will and if they choose to read something they don't like, it's a personal problem and not the problem of a newsgroup that realizes the importance of getting out the information about a country gone wrong and a president and vp that's run amuck, and alerting the masses to such.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 13:47:51
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On 24 Feb 2007 10:01:59 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
snippage.......
> And the reason you see even the folks who usually rag on off-
>topic posts (like Pflum) jump in on the political threads is because
>that is what interests them at that moment.
FTR -- I don't just in on the political threads. I just rag on them.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 10:44:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Feb 24, 10:01 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> A regular RSG poster e-mailed me questioning me about why I post off-
> topic posts in this newsgroup.
>
> He writes:
>
> "RSG has always been plagued by off-topic posts
> introduced by people just trolling for a reaction, but it wasn't until
> the
> regular posters started taking up these debates that the forum
> basically
> died as a golf discussion group."
>
> =======================
> I'll post my reply here for discussion:
> ----------
>
> I disagree. The main reason groups like RSG are dying off is simply
> because there are so many more options these days. I think you'll find
> this true of most every newsgroup. The internet is growing.
> AOL used to have a great golf community which was often frequented by
> PGA Tour Pros and instructors (I first met Butchie there). It was
> abut the only game in town where you could go and talk golf. It also
> had live chatrooms which made things even more fun. But them days are
> over.
>
> Also, there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing golf that wants
> to. And the reason you see even the folks who usually rag on off-
> topic posts (like Pflum) jump in on the political threads is because
> that is what interests them at that moment. Also, it's Winter time in
> many places and so there's not much golf to talk about except Tiger.
> I'm a golfer (or at least I used to be) who is bored with golf right
> now, and I suspect there are more folks like me out there who used to
> contribute more.
>
> I think that RSG has always mostly been about the community, rather
> than just talking golf. People come there not to hear what some
> anonymous person thinks of Tiger Woods or George Bush. They come to
> RSG to hear what the regulars there think of them. It is about
> personalities as much as it is simply info about golf. The growing
> number of RSG events around the world is proof of this. The people
> that play golf in these events can golf with other people anytime they
> want, so why do they travel great distances to play with people
> they've met online? Maybe it's the beer?
>
> Have you ever posted on some of the political newsgroups? There are
> thousands of posts there and you'll be lucky to get 2 replies to a
> post before everyone has moved on to the next thing. There is no
> discussion like there is at our own little "19th Hole." And that is
> exactly what RSG is ... it is a place where golfers gather to talk
> about whatever is on their minds, whether is is golf or something
> else. You wouldn't expect every conversation at your golf clubhouse to
> be about golf, and you'd look pretty foolish walking around telling
> people that they could only talk golf there.
> You might even get your ass whipped.
> At my course there is much more talk about football, NASCAR, and
> politics than golf.
> My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
> respond to them.
>
> The photo boards are similar in that the same folks usually post there
> and so there is interaction between people who recognize other posters
> by name. There are more on-topic posts there simply because there is
> more to talk about in the photo world with new equipment coming out
> all the time. There aren't too many new earth-shattering advances in
> golf these days ... just the usual big new drivers that guarantee 30
> more yards. And the club builders have better sites to go to for info
> as well.
>
> RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
> even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
> many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
> and become the regulars.
> Hence, RSG lives on.
You nailed it, Bret. What you're seeing in RSG is a classic struggle
between traditionalists and progressives. You're seeing it in
retirement communities and country clubs. The active baby boomers are
retiring early and and clashing with the 70-80 year olds who "want
things they way they always have been." Same is true in RSG. Some
fondly remember when RSG was all about golf. It's progressed.
I'm into boating more than golf these days so I've been "shopping" for
a couple of forums to plant myself in. My focus will likely be
two....a popular, moderated BoatersEd forum and rec.boats. Both
discuss politics a lot. BoatersEd has a seperate place for it with
rules on the nature of the posts....no profanity, insults. (Thin skin
types like BK wouldn't last 10 mins. in it). Whereas, rec.boats is a
free for all, but dominated by a small core who have been chewing on
each other for years. These folks have never met each other, so there
isn't the crony C-list crap that was a problem in RSG. My point is
this....both groups are prospering, because they recognize, like Bret
does, that people enjoy discussing various issues with people whom
they are familiar with. It's exactly the reason I choose to stay in
RSG. It remains entertaining and interesting. As long as these
elements exist, then RSG will live a while longer, perhaps prosper,
despite waning interest in RSG tournaments and the exodus of some
regulars.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 14:23:20
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
>> My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
>> respond to them.
That's a very weak argument. There wouldn't be a lot of off-topic
discussions if you and others weren't starting them. And most of the
off-topic stuff is hardly done in a respectful way here - it's childish
trolling. If it's off-topic, you (Annika, et al) would at least put OT
in the subject line. But the nature of these threads is trolling, not
discussion.
>> The photo boards are similar in that the same folks usually post there
>> and so there is interaction between people who recognize other posters
>> by name. There are more on-topic posts there simply because there is
>> more to talk about in the photo world with new equipment coming out
>> all the time. There aren't too many new earth-shattering advances in
>> golf these days ... just the usual big new drivers that guarantee 30
>> more yards. And the club builders have better sites to go to for info
>> as well.
There is a fine line between mixing some off-topic discussion with the
regular stuff, but this balance is totally out of whack right now and
has been for a long time.
The 'regulars' here are RSG spend most of their time here talking
non-golf stuff. That alone tells me there is something wrong. Everyone
here is perfectly capable of resuming this discussion in rec.politics or
some other usenet group.
>> RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
>> even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
>> many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
>> and become the regulars.
>> Hence, RSG lives on.
RSG is not a living thing. It is a group of people holding discussions.
It might not be dead, but it's far from living along it's original
purpose. I'd say it's in really bad health, and the off-topic
discussion is the addiction.
Some people here might have a major self-worth problem if there were
only 50 posts here per day. They would lose their entire social
picture. Oh well, who am I to tell addicts they are disillusioned?
Dave
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:58:27
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote
>
> Some people here might have a major self-worth problem if there were only
> 50 posts here per day. They would lose their entire social picture. Oh
> well, who am I to tell addicts they are disillusioned?
If you thing RSG has become a bad place to get golf information, let me tell
you, this is a perfect example of how it's a REALLY bad place to get
psycho-analysis.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:42:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What's wrong with RSG?
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:23:20 -0500, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote:
>>> My point is that there wouldn't be off-topic threads if people didn't
>>> respond to them.
<clip >
>The 'regulars' here are RSG spend most of their time here talking
>non-golf stuff. That alone tells me there is something wrong. Everyone
>here is perfectly capable of resuming this discussion in rec.politics or
>some other usenet group.
>
Try reading Annika's post again. Those news groups...and most of the
others that are highly posted, like the athletic groups, are cluttered
and there is never any conversation. They truly are dependent on new
blood, because the old-timers there can hardly get a word in edgewise.
>>> RSG would be dead by now if it didn't constantly aquire new posters,
>>> even as older posters go to other places. Yes, like any newsgroup
>>> many newbies visit only a few times and then move on, but some stay
>>> and become the regulars.
>>> Hence, RSG lives on.
>
>RSG is not a living thing. It is a group of people holding discussions.
> It might not be dead, but it's far from living along it's original
>purpose. I'd say it's in really bad health, and the off-topic
>discussion is the addiction.
I've been posting to RSG for 11 or 12 years, and this has been said so
many times that it's pitiful. RSG isn't dead, and won't die any time
soon.
>
When you finish your round of golf and go in for a beer, what do you
discuss? 100% golf? Of course not.
>Some people here might have a major self-worth problem if there were
>only 50 posts here per day. They would lose their entire social
>picture. Oh well, who am I to tell addicts they are disillusioned?
>
Good question. Who are you to tell anyone anything?
I know Annika pretty well, and there doesn't seem to be a lack of self
confidence there...or with any of the posters here. Your evaluation
of self-worth should be confined to yourself, because that's all you
actually have knowledge of. I would find it irresponsible for anyone
to tell you what that would be.
Well, I've been here when there were about 100 posts a week up until
now, which is ten times larger. I love posting here, because the
people all have something in common, and lately there has been a
little more golf...and that will rise as the majors come into play. If
there's golf to be discussed, fine. If not, at least the majority
here have that in common. From what I know, there is only one person
that has admitted to not playing the game.
Bottom line is that RSG is what it is. Whether or not you think it
has evolved into something interesting, or boring, is up to you.
As is whether or not you stick around. Frankly I've always made it a
point to read your posts and hope that you do.
--
___,
\o
|
|
