Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 22 Sep 2006 07:00:26
From: joes
Subject: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
lead as a European I'm worried!

Joe
www.ryderdiary.com

Date: 24 Sep 2006 17:30:38
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> :> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
> :>
> :> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
> :> No different than this.
> :
> : Sure it is. It's a huge difference. The surprise of that movies isn't
> : on the front page of every news site on the web, but the results of the
> : Ryder Cup are.
>
> This isn't the web. If I want to know the results first thing,
> I go to the web. If I want to engage in going conversations about
> golf with a bunch of guys even pissier than I am, I come here.
> See the difference?
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

I doubt that there are many pissier than you, except in the Cumwad
thread. Do you see the difference between movies and real-time sports
events?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:42:55
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
: > :
: > :> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
: > :>
: > :> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
: > :> No different than this.
: > :
: > : Sure it is. It's a huge difference. The surprise of that movies isn't
: > : on the front page of every news site on the web, but the results of the
: > : Ryder Cup are.
: >
: > This isn't the web. If I want to know the results first thing,
: > I go to the web. If I want to engage in going conversations about
: > golf with a bunch of guys even pissier than I am, I come here.
: > See the difference?
:
: I doubt that there are many pissier than you, except in the Cumwad
: thread. Do you see the difference between movies and real-time sports
: events?

Given that the number of people who had the option of watching
this sports event in real time was very limited, I do not see
that your dichotomy is appropriate. For most on this side of
the pond, this was a tape-delayed sports event. Your decision
to ignore that fact and the consequences thereof are yours to
live with. If it's your goal to antagonize as many people as
you can for no good reason, you've done well here.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:44:01
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
>
> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
> No different than this.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Sure it is. It's a huge difference. The surprise of that movies isn't
on the front page of every news site on the web, but the results of the
Ryder Cup are. Movies are not an event. They are seen by people at
different times, sometimes over months.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:21:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
:
: > Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
: >
: > ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
: > No different than this.
:
: Sure it is. It's a huge difference. The surprise of that movies isn't
: on the front page of every news site on the web, but the results of the
: Ryder Cup are.

This isn't the web. If I want to know the results first thing,
I go to the web. If I want to engage in going conversations about
golf with a bunch of guys even pissier than I am, I come here.
See the difference?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:35:54
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <2T3g9s7kI9t6N34@redshark.goodshow.net >,
Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> Big_Fan <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> :> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
> :>
> :> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
> :> No different than this.
> :
> : Sure it is. It's a huge difference. The surprise of that movies isn't
> : on the front page of every news site on the web, but the results of the
> : Ryder Cup are.
>
> This isn't the web. If I want to know the results first thing,
> I go to the web. If I want to engage in going conversations about
> golf with a bunch of guys even pissier than I am, I come here.
> See the difference?

I doubt he does.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 11:49:06
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1159019745.199174.73450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > In other words, "it's rude" for anyone to expect you to behave in any
> > > fashion other than your normal boorish, crass, one. Do you let doors go
> > > in people's faces, too, or take seats from old ladies?
> > >
> > > Thought so.
> > >
> > > William CLark
> >
> > The fact that you make the jump from this topic to the items you state
> > above (and in another response, comparing it to running down the
> > elderly on sidewalks) show that you have no understanding of reality.
> >
> > This is an internet forum discussing golf, sometimes about real-time
> > topics. The only spoiler you need is "rec.sport.golf".
>
> No, this is the Usenet, which has its own set of etiquette rules. To
> trash them as blatantly as you do says that you would do likewise to the
> rules of etiquette for everyday life.
>
> QED.
>
> William Clark

No, only someone who is ignorant such as yourself would make that
correlation. First, we're only debating one "rule" of etiquette.
Second, that "rule" has been, and will be, debatable for years to come.
Third, have you noticed that I'm not the only one on this forum who
have voiced the same opinion?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:22:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1159123746.697839.187180@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1159019745.199174.73450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > In other words, "it's rude" for anyone to expect you to behave in any
> > > > fashion other than your normal boorish, crass, one. Do you let doors go
> > > > in people's faces, too, or take seats from old ladies?
> > > >
> > > > Thought so.
> > > >
> > > > William CLark
> > >
> > > The fact that you make the jump from this topic to the items you state
> > > above (and in another response, comparing it to running down the
> > > elderly on sidewalks) show that you have no understanding of reality.
> > >
> > > This is an internet forum discussing golf, sometimes about real-time
> > > topics. The only spoiler you need is "rec.sport.golf".
> >
> > No, this is the Usenet, which has its own set of etiquette rules. To
> > trash them as blatantly as you do says that you would do likewise to the
> > rules of etiquette for everyday life.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> No, only someone who is ignorant such as yourself would make that
> correlation. First, we're only debating one "rule" of etiquette.
> Second, that "rule" has been, and will be, debatable for years to come.
> Third, have you noticed that I'm not the only one on this forum who
> have voiced the same opinion?

Haven't YOU noticed that the vast majority of opinion in this ng on this
topic agree that there IS such a thing as netiquette, and it says you do
not post results in a heading. I'm not sure what is so hard about that
for you.

Oh, well.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:08:39
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

William A. T. Clark <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

: Haven't YOU noticed that the vast majority of opinion in this ng on this
: topic agree that there IS such a thing as netiquette, and it says you do
: not post results in a heading. I'm not sure what is so hard about that
: for you.

It's not even a matter of established (n)etiquette as it is
one of common sense and consideration for others, and then,
once admonished, an unwillingness to accept responsibility
for one's own thoughtlessness. You don't need an etiquette
guide to know not to fart in a crowded room, and you don't
need one to know not to post spoilers in the headers.

Imagine:

Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!

...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
No different than this.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:39:26
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1T3g9gn9I7bsN34@redshark.goodshow.net >,
Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> : Haven't YOU noticed that the vast majority of opinion in this ng on this
> : topic agree that there IS such a thing as netiquette, and it says you do
> : not post results in a heading. I'm not sure what is so hard about that
> : for you.
>
> It's not even a matter of established (n)etiquette as it is
> one of common sense and consideration for others, and then,
> once admonished, an unwillingness to accept responsibility
> for one's own thoughtlessness. You don't need an etiquette
> guide to know not to fart in a crowded room, and you don't
> need one to know not to post spoilers in the headers.
>
> Imagine:
>
> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
>
> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
> No different than this.

Indeed, well it's one thing to make an honest mistake - it's quite
another for him to brag about it.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 16:26:18
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > writes:

> William A. T. Clark <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> : Haven't YOU noticed that the vast majority of opinion in this ng on this
> : topic agree that there IS such a thing as netiquette, and it says you do
> : not post results in a heading. I'm not sure what is so hard about that
> : for you.
>
> It's not even a matter of established (n)etiquette as it is
> one of common sense and consideration for others, and then,
> once admonished, an unwillingness to accept responsibility
> for one's own thoughtlessness. You don't need an etiquette
> guide to know not to fart in a crowded room, and you don't
> need one to know not to post spoilers in the headers.
>
> Imagine:
>
> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
>
> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
> No different than this.

You bastard! Now I have to go pick out another movie...

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:17:10
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

On 24 Sep 2006 16:26:18 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:

>Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> writes:
>
>> William A. T. Clark <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : Haven't YOU noticed that the vast majority of opinion in this ng on this
>> : topic agree that there IS such a thing as netiquette, and it says you do
>> : not post results in a heading. I'm not sure what is so hard about that
>> : for you.
>>
>> It's not even a matter of established (n)etiquette as it is
>> one of common sense and consideration for others, and then,
>> once admonished, an unwillingness to accept responsibility
>> for one's own thoughtlessness. You don't need an etiquette
>> guide to know not to fart in a crowded room, and you don't
>> need one to know not to post spoilers in the headers.
>>
>> Imagine:
>>
>> Subject: "The Usual Suspects" -- KEVIN SPACEY IS KEYSER SOZE!
>>
>> ...in a movie newsgroup, the week that "Usual Suspects" opens.
>> No different than this.
>
>You bastard! Now I have to go pick out another movie...

You could go see:

The Crying Game (He's really a girl)
No Way Out (He's really a Russian agent)
Sixth Sense (Bruce Willis is really dead)
Empire Strikes Back (Darth Vader is Luke's father)
Return of the Jedi (Lea is Luke's sister)
--

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
jvdp

Date: 23 Sep 2006 08:10:09
From: Laura M
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:
> The fact that you make the jump from this topic to the items you state
> above (and in another response, comparing it to running down the
> elderly on sidewalks) show that you have no understanding of reality.
>
> This is an internet forum discussing golf, sometimes about real-time
> topics. The only spoiler you need is "rec.sport.golf".

Can't we all just get alonnng?

One thing I can't stand about Google is that the topics that I've
posted activity to appear "magically" on my screen *without* me
actually accessing that particular group. I haven't starred the topic
either. So am I to change my email provider now too to avoid the
people who love to post results in their titles? Hmmm????

Date: 23 Sep 2006 06:55:45
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> In other words, "it's rude" for anyone to expect you to behave in any
> fashion other than your normal boorish, crass, one. Do you let doors go
> in people's faces, too, or take seats from old ladies?
>
> Thought so.
>
> William CLark

The fact that you make the jump from this topic to the items you state
above (and in another response, comparing it to running down the
elderly on sidewalks) show that you have no understanding of reality.

This is an internet forum discussing golf, sometimes about real-time
topics. The only spoiler you need is "rec.sport.golf".

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:30:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1159019745.199174.73450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> > In other words, "it's rude" for anyone to expect you to behave in any
> > fashion other than your normal boorish, crass, one. Do you let doors go
> > in people's faces, too, or take seats from old ladies?
> >
> > Thought so.
> >
> > William CLark
>
> The fact that you make the jump from this topic to the items you state
> above (and in another response, comparing it to running down the
> elderly on sidewalks) show that you have no understanding of reality.
>
> This is an internet forum discussing golf, sometimes about real-time
> topics. The only spoiler you need is "rec.sport.golf".

No, this is the Usenet, which has its own set of etiquette rules. To
trash them as blatantly as you do says that you would do likewise to the
rules of etiquette for everyday life.

QED.

William Clark

Date: 23 Sep 2006 06:52:51
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> > I've been around the internet ever since Al Gore invented it. You may
> > consider this proper etiquette, but I don't, and I don't really know
> > many people who follow it. You know why? Because it's idiotic. Like I
> > said, you don't want to know the results, then go someplace where they
> > aren't discussed.
>
> In other words, I eat with my fingers, cut in front of women and old
> ladies, run down senior citizens on crosswalks. Why? Because it's
> idiotic to do otherwise in my world.
>
> The internet has much to answer for.
>
> William Clark

No, because that would cause harm to others. There is no black and
white with this issue and to compare it to running down senior citizens
on crosswalks is idiotic as well.

Where do you draw the line with this topic? Should newspapers have
spoiler warnings on them? Should people at work say "Spoiler: I will be
discussing last night's game"? No, because the expectation is on you
to prevent seeing the spoilers, not in a forum where recent news is
discussed.

Date: 23 Sep 2006 06:48:13
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> > Yes. And? What part of intentional do you not understand? I said I
> > wouldn't do it intentionally, but I'm not going to dance around news
> > just because people aren't up to date and decide to read here.
> >
>
> Good backpedal. I think better of you.

Of course you know that wasn't my intention. I'm just being honest. If
nothing else, I try to at least me honest. Well, and being right. I'm
always right. :-)

Date: 23 Sep 2006 06:45:36
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1158960871.860855.215400@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LauraM wrote:
> > > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
> > > >
> > > > When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> > > > volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> > > > probably it's best to avoid RSG.
> > > >
> > > > But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> > > > do that.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
> >
> > Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.
> >
> > It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
> > topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.
>
> Indeed, it is really stupid to expect people to act as if they have an
> IQ above room temperature.
>
> Shame on you, Mike :-)
>
> William Clark

Yes, because intelligence is measured by etiquette.

Date: 23 Sep 2006 04:14:17
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> As an interesting comparison, the tennis ng often carries discussions
> of matches in progress, especially during grand slam events. They can
> be an interesting way to follow a match's progress, if you are unable
> to watch on tv.

I've seen the same thing with people following the World Series of
Poker, not just in newsgroups and other forums. Funny thing is, the
main event of the WSOP wasn't televised for over a month. Were people
in the rec.gambling.poker newsgroups rude by putting anything related
to the results in the subject header?

(Btw the final table of the WSOP main event will be show on Tuesday.
For those who don't know the results, Chris Moneymaker did not win)

Date: 22 Sep 2006 22:58:47
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:30:57
From:
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

First - don't take my post as directed at you solely - your post just
seemed a reasonable place to jump in with some general as well as
specific comments.

multi wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2006 16:47:33 -0700, david.harris@rogers.com wrote:
>
> > multi's post includes a couple of other
> >challenging concepts - i.e waiting until the "main broadcast is shown
> >when most people are at work, and therefore are likely to be taping
> >it".
>
> That's not what I said. I gave some examples of when it is obvious
> that many millions of people will not have seen the results yet. I
> didn't say anything about how long to wait.

Well, I cut and paste what you wrote, but I prefaced it poorly so my
mistake. My intended point was that not all people work the same days,
the same hours or live in the same time zones - so while the notion of
most people being at work is either a bit vague or narcissistic.
>
> > The most obvious challenge has to do with international events
> >and changing time zones. The Ryder Cup matches were played during
> >normal business hours on a Friday in Ireland. So should posters wait
> >until the end of the working day in Ireland before posting results? Or
> >should the wait until the end of the day in the USA? Or somewhere
> >else?
>
> What is the point of trying to create exact times and rules? Why
> can't you just say whatever the hell you want to say in the body of
> your post, and put "Ryder Cup Spoiler" in the subject, for as long as
> you think reasonable? If someone sincerely believes it's not
> reasonable to do it when people in Los Angeles are just waking up,
> then rules involving times and dates would be way too much for him.

The point of times and rules seems to be exactly what people want.
Some posters feel that 0 seconds is enough time to wait. Others feel
it should be longer. Some might be infering that UK posters should not
post until tape delayed broadcasts in the USA are complete.

But without some sort of rules and guidelines there will always be
bitching, so it seems to me that the only rule that will really work
every time is for the reader to take responsibility to not read. If
you don't want to know the current scores in a golf tournament, surely
one of the poorer decisions you could make is to read a golfing
newsgroup. I suppose you could call a friend and ask for the scores,
then complain - that would count as an even worse decision...

At least these posts are about golf.

As an interesting comparison, the tennis ng often carries discussions
of matches in progress, especially during grand slam events. They can
be an interesting way to follow a match's progress, if you are unable
to watch on tv.

So again, why not let

Date: 22 Sep 2006 22:14:16
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

david.harris@rogers.com wrote:
(snip)
> But without some sort of rules and guidelines there will always be
> bitching, so it seems to me that the only rule that will really work
> every time is for the reader to take responsibility to not read. If
> you don't want to know the current scores in a golf tournament, surely
> one of the poorer decisions you could make is to read a golfing
> newsgroup.

oh damn...some intelligence in a sea of ignorance

if you don't want to know the score of the game you have TIVO'd don't
turn on ESPN...pretty simple

Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:01:34
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Date: 22 Sep 2006 16:47:33
From:
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

multi wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2006 12:13:49 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >That reminds me. At what point is it ok to put "spoilers" in the title?
> >If it's never, then it's idiotic. If not, then when is it ok?
>
> When it's OK is hard to say. When it's not OK is much easier to say.
> If the main broadcast is delayed, then it's not OK to put live results
> in the subject. And if the main broadcast is shown when most people
> are at work, and therefore are likely to be taping it, it's also not
> OK.
>
> Note that saying it's not OK doesn't mean there is a law against it,
> just as there is no law that says you have to give your seat to an old
> lady on crutches. You're not a criminal; you're just an asshole.

This is an issue that comes up in all sports newsgroups at every major
event. Five years ago, I wrote to vehemently censure those who were so
self-centred that they wouldn't take the very small step of putting
"spoiler" in the title of any post that had current results of a game
in progress.

As time has gone by, I've changed my opinion. It really is incumbent
on the reader to avoid those newsgroups (and radio and tv and other
news sources) if he wants to remain blissfully unaware of outcome of a
sporting event.

Otherwise, it is up to all of us to try to develop some intricate rules
for posting results, and to hope that everyone who posts will follow
them.

This seems futile for at least two reasons: First, the notion of
unanimous compliance on usenet is... optimistic? Second, (and the
reason I chose this particular post to respond to, although it could
have gone anywhere) is that multi's post includes a couple of other
challenging concepts - i.e waiting until the "main broadcast is shown
when most people are at work, and therefore are likely to be taping
it". The most obvious challenge has to do with international events
and changing time zones. The Ryder Cup matches were played during
normal business hours on a Friday in Ireland. So should posters wait
until the end of the working day in Ireland before posting results? Or
should the wait until the end of the day in the USA? Or somewhere
else? Once the military coup ends in Bangkok, folks there might be
watching and reading usenet.

So when is it okay in an international world (those terms seem to have
a built-in redundancy)? Should American posters refrain from posting
results of the US Open for a day out of courtesy to the Australians?
Or the Solomon Islanders? Who, exactly, rates being given the
courtesy, and who does not?

And I don't know of a specific time frame for posting (and without a
specific time frame, then any time frame could be acceptable (or
not)).Should it be 12 hours after the conclusion of play? Or 24 hours?
I often go out of town for the weekend and set things up to be taped
and viewed on return. So I really need 2 days, or 3 if it's a long
weekend (does everyone celebrate the same long weekends?).

It gets a bit muddled to try to set out clear rules for posting, and
therefore it becomes simplest and best to put the responsibility back
on the reader rather than the poster. There are a thousand ways you
can spend your time in the next 24 hours: If you don't want to know
the current standings in the Ryder Cup, then reading RSG seems a really
poor choice. That's a choice each of us who cares can control.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:33:01
From: multi
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

On 22 Sep 2006 16:47:33 -0700, david.harris@rogers.com wrote:

> multi's post includes a couple of other
>challenging concepts - i.e waiting until the "main broadcast is shown
>when most people are at work, and therefore are likely to be taping
>it".

That's not what I said. I gave some examples of when it is obvious
that many millions of people will not have seen the results yet. I
didn't say anything about how long to wait.

> The most obvious challenge has to do with international events
>and changing time zones. The Ryder Cup matches were played during
>normal business hours on a Friday in Ireland. So should posters wait
>until the end of the working day in Ireland before posting results? Or
>should the wait until the end of the day in the USA? Or somewhere
>else?

What is the point of trying to create exact times and rules? Why
can't you just say whatever the hell you want to say in the body of
your post, and put "Ryder Cup Spoiler" in the subject, for as long as
you think reasonable? If someone sincerely believes it's not
reasonable to do it when people in Los Angeles are just waking up,
then rules involving times and dates would be way too much for him.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:57:31
From: LauraM
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:
> LauraM wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >
> > > Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
> > >
> > > When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> > > volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> > > probably it's best to avoid RSG.
> > >
> > > But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> > > do that.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.

Duly noted. I take back everything nice I've ever said about you. :^)
>
> It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
> topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:43:57
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Big_Fan wrote:
>
> > LauraM wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
> >>>
> >>>When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> >>>volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> >>>probably it's best to avoid RSG.
> >>>
> >>>But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> >>>do that.
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>
> >>Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
> >
> >
> > Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.
> >
> > It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
> > topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.
> >
>
> A quote from your earlier post:
>
> 'but I don't care if I "spoil" any results for anyone.'

Yes. And? What part of intentional do you not understand? I said I
wouldn't do it intentionally, but I'm not going to dance around news
just because people aren't up to date and decide to read here.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 21:58:55
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:

> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Big_Fan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>LauraM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike Dalecki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
>>>>>
>>>>>When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
>>>>>volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
>>>>>probably it's best to avoid RSG.
>>>>>
>>>>>But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
>>>>>do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
>>>
>>>
>>>Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.
>>>
>>>It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
>>>topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.
>>>
>>
>>A quote from your earlier post:
>>
>>'but I don't care if I "spoil" any results for anyone.'
>
>
> Yes. And? What part of intentional do you not understand? I said I
> wouldn't do it intentionally, but I'm not going to dance around news
> just because people aren't up to date and decide to read here.
>

Good backpedal. I think better of you.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 2006 14:34:31
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

LauraM wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
> > Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
> >
> > When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> > volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> > probably it's best to avoid RSG.
> >
> > But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> > do that.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!

Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.

It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.

Date: 23 Sep 2006 09:38:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1158960871.860855.215400@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> LauraM wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >
> > > Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
> > >
> > > When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> > > volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> > > probably it's best to avoid RSG.
> > >
> > > But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> > > do that.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.
>
> It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
> topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.

Indeed, it is really stupid to expect people to act as if they have an
IQ above room temperature.

Shame on you, Mike :-)

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 04:42:07
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> Indeed, it is really stupid to expect people to act as if they have an
> IQ above room temperature.
<snip >

Which temperature scale: Centigrade, Fahrenheit or Kelvins?

Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:41:48
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:

> LauraM wrote:
>
>>Mike Dalecki wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
>>>
>>>When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
>>>volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
>>>probably it's best to avoid RSG.
>>>
>>>But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
>>>do that.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>>Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!
>
>
> Except that I wasn't talking about intentional hurt.
>
> It's more of an ass to expect others not to mistakenly mention current
> topics just because you aren't up-to-date on them yet.
>

A quote from your earlier post:

'but I don't care if I "spoil" any results for anyone.'

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:28:13
From: LauraM
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Mike Dalecki wrote:

> Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.
>
> When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> probably it's best to avoid RSG.
>
> But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> do that.
>
> Mike
>
Thanks, Mike. I couldn't have said it better myself!

Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:17:25
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> If you want to deny yourself information about a sporting event or some
> other event's progress or conclusion then it is incumbent upon YOU to
> isolate yourself from informaiton sources. You should not expect the
> rest of us to deny ourselves the ability to discuss progress and
> conclusion in interactive fourms.

Exactly.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:16:10
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
> volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
> probably it's best to avoid RSG.
>
> But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
> do that.
>
> Mike

I'm not going out of my way to spoil their enjoyment. I think you would
be an ass to expect me to go out of my way to not say something about
golf on a golf newsgroup. If you expect others to make changes to
their posts to appease you, then you would be the self-centered ass.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:05:12
From: The Bert
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

LauraM wrote:
> joes wrote:
> > So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
> > Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
> > and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
> > fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
> > lead as a European I'm worried!
> >
> > Joe
> > www.ryderdiary.com
>
> You really should post a title like Ryder Cup SPOILER instead of the
> result as you did. Sometimes we go into the newsgroups for other
> things and don't expect someone to post the result in their title. I
> hope you take this as a how-to rather than an admonishment.

If you want to deny yourself information about a sporting event or some
other event's progress or conclusion then it is incumbent upon YOU to
isolate yourself from informaiton sources. You should not expect the
rest of us to deny ourselves the ability to discuss progress and
conclusion in interactive fourms.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:13:49
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

sfb wrote:
> Dear Miss Laura, Internet Nazis do best when getting it right. The etiquette
> suggests SPOILER in the title with results in the BODY.
>
> "LauraM" <Laura.Dave.Macdonald@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158951676.159944.283580@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Big_Fan wrote:
> >> I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> >> "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
> >> want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> >> on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> >> People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> >> discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> >> things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> >> then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> >> discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> >> discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> >> than they happen.
> >
> > There's etiquette in posting to newsgroups, or haven't you heard that?
> > It's the same as top-posting. Don't put results in your titles and
> > don't top post. Simple. Like chewing with your mouth closed. Good
> > manners. But not many people care about that anymore in life.
> >

That reminds me. At what point is it ok to put "spoilers" in the title?
If it's never, then it's idiotic. If not, then when is it ok?

I can understand the discussion of movies or similar events, but to not
put anything in the subject that points to results is ridiculous.
After the Super Bowl, do you expect no one to put "Congrats Pittsburgh"
in their subject?

Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:57:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

On 22 Sep 2006 12:13:49 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

>That reminds me. At what point is it ok to put "spoilers" in the title?
>If it's never, then it's idiotic. If not, then when is it ok?

When it's OK is hard to say. When it's not OK is much easier to say.
If the main broadcast is delayed, then it's not OK to put live results
in the subject. And if the main broadcast is shown when most people
are at work, and therefore are likely to be taping it, it's also not
OK.

Note that saying it's not OK doesn't mean there is a law against it,
just as there is no law that says you have to give your seat to an old
lady on crutches. You're not a criminal; you're just an asshole.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:45:32
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

To me, only when a sports event is shown tape delayed on TV such as when the
PGA goes off early Sunday AM because of weather and TV shows the tape at 4
PM Eastern.

"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158952429.157566.290010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> That reminds me. At what point is it ok to put "spoilers" in the title?
> If it's never, then it's idiotic. If not, then when is it ok?
>
> I can understand the discussion of movies or similar events, but to not
> put anything in the subject that points to results is ridiculous.
> After the Super Bowl, do you expect no one to put "Congrats Pittsburgh"
> in their subject?
>

Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:10:46
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

LauraM wrote:
> Big_Fan wrote:
> > I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> > "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
> > want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> > on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> > People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> > discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> > things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> > then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> > discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> > discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> > than they happen.
>
> There's etiquette in posting to newsgroups, or haven't you heard that?
> It's the same as top-posting. Don't put results in your titles and
> don't top post. Simple. Like chewing with your mouth closed. Good
> manners. But not many people care about that anymore in life.

I've been around the internet ever since Al Gore invented it. You may
consider this proper etiquette, but I don't, and I don't really know
many people who follow it. You know why? Because it's idiotic. Like I
said, you don't want to know the results, then go someplace where they
aren't discussed.

You want to worry about etiquette, then worry about the name-calling
and bashing that go on throughout the newsgroups.

Date: 23 Sep 2006 09:41:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1158952245.908391.271540@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> LauraM wrote:
> > Big_Fan wrote:
> > > I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> > > "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
> > > want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> > > on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> > > People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> > > discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> > > things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> > > then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> > > discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> > > discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> > > than they happen.
> >
> > There's etiquette in posting to newsgroups, or haven't you heard that?
> > It's the same as top-posting. Don't put results in your titles and
> > don't top post. Simple. Like chewing with your mouth closed. Good
> > manners. But not many people care about that anymore in life.
>
> I've been around the internet ever since Al Gore invented it. You may
> consider this proper etiquette, but I don't, and I don't really know
> many people who follow it. You know why? Because it's idiotic. Like I
> said, you don't want to know the results, then go someplace where they
> aren't discussed.

In other words, I eat with my fingers, cut in front of women and old
ladies, run down senior citizens on crosswalks. Why? Because it's
idiotic to do otherwise in my world.

The internet has much to answer for.

William Clark

Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:01:16
From: LauraM
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:
> I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
> want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> than they happen.

There's etiquette in posting to newsgroups, or haven't you heard that?
It's the same as top-posting. Don't put results in your titles and
don't top post. Simple. Like chewing with your mouth closed. Good
manners. But not many people care about that anymore in life.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:05:36
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Dear Miss Laura, Internet Nazis do best when getting it right. The etiquette
suggests SPOILER in the title with results in the BODY.

"LauraM" <Laura.Dave.Macdonald@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158951676.159944.283580@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Big_Fan wrote:
>> I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
>> "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
>> want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
>> on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
>> People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
>> discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
>> things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
>> then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
>> discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
>> discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
>> than they happen.
>
> There's etiquette in posting to newsgroups, or haven't you heard that?
> It's the same as top-posting. Don't put results in your titles and
> don't top post. Simple. Like chewing with your mouth closed. Good
> manners. But not many people care about that anymore in life.
>

Date: 22 Sep 2006 11:39:02
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

LauraM wrote:
> joes wrote:
> > So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
> > Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
> > and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
> > fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
> > lead as a European I'm worried!
> >
> > Joe
> > www.ryderdiary.com
>
> You really should post a title like Ryder Cup SPOILER instead of the
> result as you did. Sometimes we go into the newsgroups for other
> things and don't expect someone to post the result in their title. I
> hope you take this as a how-to rather than an admonishment.

I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
"spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
than they happen.

Date: 23 Sep 2006 09:36:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

In article <1158950342.253352.79980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> LauraM wrote:
> > joes wrote:
> > > So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
> > > Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
> > > and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
> > > fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
> > > lead as a European I'm worried!
> > >
> > > Joe
> > > www.ryderdiary.com
> >
> > You really should post a title like Ryder Cup SPOILER instead of the
> > result as you did. Sometimes we go into the newsgroups for other
> > things and don't expect someone to post the result in their title. I
> > hope you take this as a how-to rather than an admonishment.
>
> I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> "spoil" any results for anyone. if you taped the coverage and don't
> want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> than they happen.

In other words, "it's rude" for anyone to expect you to behave in any
fashion other than your normal boorish, crass, one. Do you let doors go
in people's faces, too, or take seats from old ladies?

Thought so.

William CLark

Date: 22 Sep 2006 14:19:03
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Big_Fan wrote:
> LauraM wrote:
>
>>joes wrote:
>>
>>>So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
>>>Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
>>>and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
>>>fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
>>>lead as a European I'm worried!
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>www.ryderdiary.com
>>
>>You really should post a title like Ryder Cup SPOILER instead of the
>>result as you did. Sometimes we go into the newsgroups for other
>>things and don't expect someone to post the result in their title. I
>>hope you take this as a how-to rather than an admonishment.
>
>
> I'll be honest. I didn't title this thread, but I don't care if I
> "spoil" any results for anyone.

This is good to know. Thank you for the clear indication of your
self-centeredness, community spirit, and consideration for others.

if you taped the coverage and don't
> want to know the results, then don't go on the internet (and don't turn
> on the TV). The internet is real-time and news spreads instantly.
> People who want to discuss those events shouldn't have to change their
> discussion or "dance around" the people who may not be keeping up with
> things. If you don't want to know the news (or results) real-time,
> then don't go places were those things are. It isn't being rude to
> discuss the results, it's rude to expect people to alter normal
> discussion habits to appease your preference to know things much later
> than they happen.

Does it cost a single thing to be considerate of others? No.

When people go out of their way to spoil it for others, that tells you
volumes about them. I agree that if one wants to avoid the results,
probably it's best to avoid RSG.

But to intentionally try to hurt others' enjoyment? Only an ass would
do that.

Mike

>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2005 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2005/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 2006 08:55:07
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

Date: 22 Sep 2006 08:09:49
From: LauraM
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

joes wrote:
> So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
> Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
> and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
> fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
> lead as a European I'm worried!
>
> Joe
> www.ryderdiary.com

You really should post a title like Ryder Cup SPOILER instead of the
result as you did. Sometimes we go into the newsgroups for other
things and don't expect someone to post the result in their title. I
hope you take this as a how-to rather than an admonishment.

Date: 22 Sep 2006 07:49:46
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

joes wrote:
> > Definitely a sign of things to come this weekend - lots of jerk nut
> > spoilers like yourself.
>
> What?! You are on the internet, reading the latest posts on newsgroups
> and you're giving out about the latest information being posted up? For
> real?

I didn't say it bothered me, I don't read RSG if I don't know the
scores. I'm just saying there will be a lot of idiot spoilers this
weekend. "Giving out"??

Date: 22 Sep 2006 07:44:48
From: joes
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

> Definitely a sign of things to come this weekend - lots of jerk nut
> spoilers like yourself.

What?! You are on the internet, reading the latest posts on newsgroups
and you're giving out about the latest information being posted up? For
real?

Joe
www.ryderdiary.com

Date: 22 Sep 2006 07:18:45
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Woods beats Monty - A sign of things to come?

joes wrote:
> So Woods has done it. Despite a terrible start in the drive off the tee
> Woods & Furyk have managed to beat the European talisman Montgommerie
> and his partner Harrington. Do you reckon this signifies a change in
> fortune for the US and a taste of what's to come? Despite an early
> lead as a European I'm worried!
>
> Joe
> www.ryderdiary.com

Definitely a sign of things to come this weekend - lots of jerk nut
spoilers like yourself.