| |
Main
Date: 09 Sep 2006 17:53:44
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
After being rained out with fellow RSGer Gary Hayenga today with 6
holes in, I got home to a nice surprise of the new Dave Pelz Damage
Control book at my doorstep. I through the first couple of chapters
and it's in excellent Pelz style, presenting you with statistics,
followed up by the proper way to play to those stats.
Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
screws them up.
2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
trouble.
3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
help you decide on the proper shot
5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing what else he
comes up with, but it looks promising (although the shot pattern
comparing Phil's 4-wood to the average player is a bit disheartening).
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 05:22:28
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
> Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
>
> 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> trouble.
>
> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
> >
> 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
So why didn't he pass these tips on to Mickelson?
RJ
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 18:39:37
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> After being rained out with fellow RSGer Gary Hayenga today with 6
> holes in, I got home to a nice surprise of the new Dave Pelz Damage
> Control book at my doorstep. I through the first couple of chapters
> and it's in excellent Pelz style, presenting you with statistics,
> followed up by the proper way to play to those stats.
>
> Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
that's definitely me
>
> 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> trouble.
that's definitely me
>
> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
that's definitely NOT me. I practice them, I just can't execute them all
of the time and neither can the Pros
>
> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
> help you decide on the proper shot
WTF is a "shot pattern"? I guess I need to get the book and pad Pelz's
wallet
>
> 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
I agree, Pelz is a genius
>
> I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing what else he
> comes up with, but it looks promising (although the shot pattern
> comparing Phil's 4-wood to the average player is a bit disheartening).
>
IMO, Dave Pelz is 80% right on and 20% an idiot. OK, so it's my opinion,
don't kill me for it, but ya gotta admit he's trying to sell books and
some of his ideas are Way Out There...
Dave
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:23:49
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
long&left wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
>
<snip >
>> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
>> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>
>
> that's definitely NOT me. I practice them, I just can't execute them all
> of the time and neither can the Pros
Perhaps you bite off more than you can chew? When I think of recovery
shots, I think of something to get me back in play, and depending on the
shot, maybe near (or even on) the green.
There are maybe 4 such shots for me: A punch-out, a longer punch out
with something like a 4-iron or 3-wood; a soft fade around an obstacle,
and a knock-down partial shot with something like a 7-iron or 9 iron,
something I'm trying to hit through a hole in the trees.
I think of a recovery shot as something that, if I execute it reasonably
well, will get me back in play and, if I play the rest of the hole
normally, will give me a putt for par, nothing more, and make it very
likely I'll end up no worse than bogey.
While I don't think this applies to you, I suspect many players think of
rcovery shots as something Seve Ballesteros would have hit in his
heyday, i.e., making birdie from the parking lot, like that.
Recovery, to me, doesn't mean getting the ball to the green in
regulation (though there are often ways if you're creative); rather, it
means getting out of trouble, to a good place, where you can approach
the green with no obstacles and hopefully no rough.
I think many golfers compound their errors by trying the Seve shot
instead of what they really can do.
>
>>
>> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
>> help you decide on the proper shot
>
>
> WTF is a "shot pattern"? I guess I need to get the book and pad Pelz's
> wallet
Fade, draw, whatever.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 21:18:02
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
The disaster holes are part of their handicap.
You can't just count the "good holes".
Otto
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1157849624.413245.87110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 05:22:49
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:lFJMg.52538$e9.24601@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> The disaster holes are part of their handicap.
>
> You can't just count the "good holes".
>
> Otto
>
>
Unless you are Michelle Wie.
;-)
RJ
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 09:34:08
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> After being rained out with fellow RSGer Gary Hayenga today with 6
> holes in, I got home to a nice surprise of the new Dave Pelz Damage
> Control book at my doorstep. I through the first couple of chapters
> and it's in excellent Pelz style, presenting you with statistics,
> followed up by the proper way to play to those stats.
>
> Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
>
> 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> trouble.
>
> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>
> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
> help you decide on the proper shot
>
> 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
>
> I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing what else he
> comes up with, but it looks promising (although the shot pattern
> comparing Phil's 4-wood to the average player is a bit disheartening).
So it all boils down to making a conservative, sure-thing recovery shot
and moving on.
It's absolutely true that too many players make their situation worse
rather than better when in trouble. I play my best, without exception,
when I choose the lowest-risk recovery option. Get back on track and
forget green in regulation for the hole.
Dave
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:39:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On 9 Sep 2006 17:53:44 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
>the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
>screws them up.
Those of use whom that describes often play better in match play than
our handicaps would indicate.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 05:10:45
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
R.J. wrote:
> > Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
> >
> > 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> > the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> > screws them up.
> >
> > 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> > that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> > trouble.
> >
> > 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> > change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
> > >
> > 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> > just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> > in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
>
>
> So why didn't he pass these tips on to Mickelson?
Who said he didn't?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:02:39
From: Shintaro
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> R.J. wrote:
>
>>>Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>>>
>>>1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
>>>the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
>>>screws them up.
>>>
>>>2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
>>>that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
>>>trouble.
>>>
>>>3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
>>>change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>>>
>>>5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
>>>just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
>>>in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
>>
>>
>>So why didn't he pass these tips on to Mickelson?
>
>
> Who said he didn't?
>
Phil must be a very bad student.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 02:56:29
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Shintaro" <not_necessary@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:4504b5af_1@news.tm.net.my...
>>>So why didn't he pass these tips on to Mickelson?
>>
>> Who said he didn't?
>>
> Phil must be a very bad student.
I just love how the point of any particular thread will be lost on a good
70% of those who read it around these parts. Shintaro, I would suspect that
you are not nearly the golfer that Mickelson is and therefore might benefit
from a book by a well respected golf instructor/researcher (if you play golf
at all).
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:46:55
From: Shintaro
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Shintaro" <not_necessary@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4504b5af_1@news.tm.net.my...
>
>>>>So why didn't he pass these tips on to Mickelson?
>>>
>>>Who said he didn't?
>>>
>>
>>Phil must be a very bad student.
>
>
> I just love how the point of any particular thread will be lost on a good
> 70% of those who read it around these parts. Shintaro, I would suspect that
> you are not nearly the golfer that Mickelson is and therefore might benefit
> from a book by a well respected golf instructor/researcher (if you play golf
> at all).
>
>
You what? Oh, your point got lost again. ;P
Frank, just chill out and let it slide. Either that or I have to put
<irony ></irony> around my posts.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 05:09:51
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
> > 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> > change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>
> that's definitely NOT me. I practice them, I just can't execute them all
> of the time and neither can the Pros
He's not saying that you should be able to execute them all the time,
but knowing where they're likely to go will help you increase the odds
of making the shot into recovery.
> >
> > 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
> > help you decide on the proper shot
>
> WTF is a "shot pattern"? I guess I need to get the book and pad Pelz's
> wallet
A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
bad situation instead of making it worse.
He gives a good example of a real player from one of his schools. The
guy was something like a 20 index. They get up to a hole with OB left,
water about 230 out on the right. The guy pounds a driver with his
weak fade into the water and is all pissed off about it.
Pelz said he just smiles, in that this guy only hits the straight shot
20% of the time. Pelz said he thought the guy was luckly that he didn't
hit it OB. His point was that with some critical thinking and
understanding his own tendencies, the player could have pulled the 5
wood and at least taken the water completely out of play.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 07:56:23
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
>>> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
>>> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>> that's definitely NOT me. I practice them, I just can't execute them all
>> of the time and neither can the Pros
>
> He's not saying that you should be able to execute them all the time,
> but knowing where they're likely to go will help you increase the odds
> of making the shot into recovery.
>
>>> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
>>> help you decide on the proper shot
>> WTF is a "shot pattern"? I guess I need to get the book and pad Pelz's
>> wallet
>
> A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
> perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
> tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
> crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
> most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
> bad situation instead of making it worse.
>
> He gives a good example of a real player from one of his schools. The
> guy was something like a 20 index. They get up to a hole with OB left,
> water about 230 out on the right. The guy pounds a driver with his
> weak fade into the water and is all pissed off about it.
>
> Pelz said he just smiles, in that this guy only hits the straight shot
> 20% of the time. Pelz said he thought the guy was luckly that he didn't
> hit it OB. His point was that with some critical thinking and
> understanding his own tendencies, the player could have pulled the 5
> wood and at least taken the water completely out of play.
>
thanks for the explanation. Some of Pelz' ideas are a bit goofy to me.
Given that he's writing a book for what are presumably normal with
regard to handicap, non professional golfers, how can he realistically
expect one in that group to have the time or inclination to hit 100 7
irons. Probably 90% of that group has very little or no time to practice
at all. I'm an exception probably in that I practice every day I'm not
playing golf but I wouldn't have the patience to hit 100 7 irons PLUS
record each of the results to get a shot pattern. I can hit 5 7 irons
and know what my probable results will be with it for that day...maybe
that's a mini shot pattern? :)
and, I'm assuming that Pelz said that in his book, but it may have just
been a part of your explanation. If he didn't say that then he's not as
goofy as I thought...
Dave
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:12:02
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
long&left wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
>>>> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
>>>> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>>> that's definitely NOT me. I practice them, I just can't execute them all
>>> of the time and neither can the Pros
>>
>> He's not saying that you should be able to execute them all the time,
>> but knowing where they're likely to go will help you increase the odds
>> of making the shot into recovery.
>>
>>>> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
>>>> help you decide on the proper shot
>>> WTF is a "shot pattern"? I guess I need to get the book and pad Pelz's
>>> wallet
>>
>> A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
>> perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
>> tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
>> crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
>> most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
>> bad situation instead of making it worse.
>>
>> He gives a good example of a real player from one of his schools. The
>> guy was something like a 20 index. They get up to a hole with OB left,
>> water about 230 out on the right. The guy pounds a driver with his
>> weak fade into the water and is all pissed off about it.
>>
>> Pelz said he just smiles, in that this guy only hits the straight shot
>> 20% of the time. Pelz said he thought the guy was luckly that he didn't
>> hit it OB. His point was that with some critical thinking and
>> understanding his own tendencies, the player could have pulled the 5
>> wood and at least taken the water completely out of play.
>>
>
> thanks for the explanation. Some of Pelz' ideas are a bit goofy to me.
> Given that he's writing a book for what are presumably normal with
> regard to handicap, non professional golfers, how can he realistically
> expect one in that group to have the time or inclination to hit 100 7
> irons. Probably 90% of that group has very little or no time to practice
> at all. I'm an exception probably in that I practice every day I'm not
> playing golf but I wouldn't have the patience to hit 100 7 irons PLUS
> record each of the results to get a shot pattern. I can hit 5 7 irons
> and know what my probable results will be with it for that day...maybe
> that's a mini shot pattern? :)
>
> and, I'm assuming that Pelz said that in his book, but it may have just
> been a part of your explanation. If he didn't say that then he's not as
> goofy as I thought...
> Dave
The idea of a "swing" is that it's a repeatable process, so you know
direction and distance.
Tran
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:43:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On 10 Sep 2006 05:09:51 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
>perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
>tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
>crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
>most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
>bad situation instead of making it worse.
Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
different pattern will develop.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:28:39
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Play to the pattern for that week or that day.
Otto
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:ej58g2tsss1k2o7dei38aea25e334go0qt@4ax.com...
> Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
> different pattern will develop.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:10:42
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 05:09:51 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
>> perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
>> tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
>> crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
>> most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
>> bad situation instead of making it worse.
>
> Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
> different pattern will develop.
I don't understand how you can be so crap - do you actually enjoy
hacking around in 90+ with no improvement?
Tran
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:51:56
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On 11 Sep 2006 11:10:42 +0200, Tranny <tranny@notrolll.com > wrote:
>> Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
>> different pattern will develop.
>
>I don't understand how you can be so crap - do you actually enjoy
>hacking around in 90+ with no improvement?
There is improvement. But I started playing late in life. But
still walking a course, hitting the ball, and getting a bogey isn't
that much difference, objectively with doing the same thing and
getting a birdie.
What makes it fun is attitude.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 05:03:04
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> The disaster holes are part of their handicap.
>
> You can't just count the "good holes".
>
> Otto
>
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157849624.413245.87110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> > the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> > screws them up.
Please fix your own top post.
He isn't saying that it shouldn't count, he's saying that correcting
those disaster holes by understanding what causes them in the first
place will bring ones handicap down 2-5 strokes.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:26:58
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you don't
like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
My point was you have the bad holes because you have a higher handicap.
They go hand in hand.
Occasionally, the high handicapper will have a day where the golf gods smile
on them and they will have no blow up holes and all of a sudden they think
their game has improved. It might even last for a couple days.
Expectations are raised, then the real game comes out and their frustration
is palpable.
That's when the caddy says "You aren't good enough to be mad."
Otto
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1157889784.293607.241630@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Otto wrote:
>> The disaster holes are part of their handicap.
>>
>> You can't just count the "good holes".
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157849624.413245.87110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
>> > the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
>> > screws them up.
>
> Please fix your own top post.
>
> He isn't saying that it shouldn't count, he's saying that correcting
> those disaster holes by understanding what causes them in the first
> place will bring ones handicap down 2-5 strokes.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 11:30:11
From: Steven Paul
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
In article <NgVMg.2694$726.2329@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, Otto
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you don't
> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
If you were writing them for yourself that makes perfect sense.
Presumably you're writing them for other people to read.
Reading top posting is like playing Jeopardy.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 14:11:10
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you have
already read?
I find the scrolling tredious and often bypass thread inputs because of it.
Perhaps if the editing was more concise, the necessary scrolling would be
less cumbersome and tedious.
Otto
A longtime top poster
"Steven Paul" <listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm > wrote in message
news:100920061130110986%listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm...
> Reading top posting is like playing Jeopardy.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:29:26
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:_yYMg.33438$ry2.31066@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
> follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you
> have already read?
No. I find it tedious that the threads become unreadable by top-posting
mixed in with the standard method of reply on Usenet. I'd be almost as
happy if top-posting were the standard. I much prefer that people do the
necessary snipping and bottom post. That makes things much easier to read.
Worse than anything imaginable is a few mavericks insisting on top-posting
because it is easier, while most people conform to the arbitrary standard.
That definitely makes threads harder to read.
Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:44:32
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
S McFarlane <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote:
:
: "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
: news:_yYMg.33438$ry2.31066@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: > If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
: > follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you
: > have already read?
:
: No. I find it tedious that the threads become unreadable by top-posting
: mixed in with the standard method of reply on Usenet. I'd be almost as
: happy if top-posting were the standard. I much prefer that people do the
: necessary snipping and bottom post. That makes things much easier to read.
: Worse than anything imaginable is a few mavericks insisting on top-posting
: because it is easier, while most people conform to the arbitrary standard.
It's not arbitrary. It's rude to assume that readers have already
read previous articles in a thread, or to make them scroll to the
bottom of a post and work their way up to read the followups in
context. It's also highly counterintuitive.
Your point about snipping irrelevant content is well taken, though.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:55:35
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
I'm a little lost here.
I should assume previous articles have not been read, and yet I should edit
previous articles?
As far as counterintuitive, I find it faster and easier to read a top post.
If I don't quite understand the context, then I can move down to a properly
edited reference. If the context is clear, I move on and never have to
reference the material below it.
Of course, context is always easier when you start at the begining.
Otto
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f5huuI3cpN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> It's not arbitrary. It's rude to assume that readers have already
> read previous articles in a thread, or to make them scroll to the
> bottom of a post and work their way up to read the followups in
> context. It's also highly counterintuitive.
>
> Your point about snipping irrelevant content is well taken, though.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:59:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
: I'm a little lost here.
:
: I should assume previous articles have not been read, and yet I should edit
: previous articles?
You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
If your followup content doesn't pertain to certain quoted material,
there's no reason to quote that material.
: As far as counterintuitive, I find it faster and easier to read a top post.
: If I don't quite understand the context, then I can move down to a properly
: edited reference. If the context is clear, I move on and never have to
: reference the material below it.
Do you like to hear the punchline first when a joke is told?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:01:33
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
> If your followup content doesn't pertain to certain quoted material,
> there's no reason to quote that material.
So do we bottom post with three pages of posts from 5 different people who
posted 3 times each and no one edits any of it?
Seems common here.
> Do you like to hear the punchline first when a joke is told?
It depends.
In the case of this board, I generally remember the joke from the previous
post and prefer to simply read the punchline instead of having to read the
joke over again and again and again.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:14:41
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
: > If your followup content doesn't pertain to certain quoted material,
: > there's no reason to quote that material.
:
: So do we bottom post with three pages of posts from 5 different people who
: posted 3 times each and no one edits any of it?
Laziness.
: Seems common here.
Mea culpa!
: > Do you like to hear the punchline first when a joke is told?
:
: It depends.
:
: In the case of this board, I generally remember the joke from the previous
: post and prefer to simply read the punchline instead of having to read the
: joke over again and again and again.
It's good that you read from a server where the posts always arrive
complete and in order. Not everyone has that luxury, though. The
server from which I read, for instance, had terrible problems with
its feed last week after one of its peers lost a disk subsystem.
This sort of thing isn't exactly uncommon in the world of NNTP.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 03:32:50
From: rich
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
Why? Who reads that way? With software that threads messages it seems a
little strange to write each post as if it stands alone, as opposed to being
part of a thread.
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 04:08:00
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
rich <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: >
: > You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
:
: Why?
Because many newsfeeds are incomplete or have posts arrive out
of order. (For one reason.)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 04:39:17
From: rich
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3fd9ftIn0gN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> rich <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :>
> :> You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
> :
> : Why?
>
> Because many newsfeeds are incomplete or have posts arrive out
> of order. (For one reason.)
Then get as active in chiding people who do not snip as you are in chiding
people for top-posting. I would venture to guess that lousy editing of the
message(s) being replied to is one of the leading causes of top-posting.
And it is just as much of a violation of USENET conventions as top-posting.
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:48:08
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
rich wrote:
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1T3fd9ftIn0gN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> rich <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>> : news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> :>
>> :> You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
>> :
>> : Why?
>>
>> Because many newsfeeds are incomplete or have posts arrive out
>> of order. (For one reason.)
>
> Then get as active in chiding people who do not snip as you are in chiding
> people for top-posting. I would venture to guess that lousy editing of the
> message(s) being replied to is one of the leading causes of top-posting.
> And it is just as much of a violation of USENET conventions as top-posting.
>
> Rich
>
>
I've often wondered why USENET folks don't have much of a problem with
scrolling down 300 lines to see an "I agree" post at the bottom but get
mighty agitated if one top posts even with a healthy removal of quantity
of typage . I am (or try to be) and active snipper of worthless verbage
that doesn't have anything to do with what my post reply says but I
frankly see a lot of use in top posting. I don't do it because I stay
the norm mostly...but it is inviting :)
Dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 12:04:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:48:08 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>I've often wondered why USENET folks don't have much of a problem with
>scrolling down 300 lines to see an "I agree" post at the bottom but get
>mighty agitated if one top posts even with a healthy removal of quantity
>of typage .
I bet often it is because, lots of us never scroll down past a page of
quotes, skipping those rude messages altogether.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 07:09:29
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:48:08 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered why USENET folks don't have much of a problem with
>> scrolling down 300 lines to see an "I agree" post at the bottom but get
>> mighty agitated if one top posts even with a healthy removal of quantity
>> of typage .
>
> I bet often it is because, lots of us never scroll down past a page of
> quotes, skipping those rude messages altogether.
could be...I know that it pisses me off to finally get to the end and
the all I see is "me too". Grrrrr
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 10:11:54
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote in message
news:muyOg.9$%35.3@newsfe02.lga...
> could be...I know that it pisses me off to finally get to the end and the
> all I see is "me too". Grrrrr
Those kind of threads lose me. Scroll and scroll and scroll and then not
much of anything. If it were visible in the preview pane as a top post I
would probably stick with it. Instead, I take it off the watch list and away
it goes.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:39:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
rich <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:1T3fd9ftIn0gN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > rich <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > : news:2T3f741nIishN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :>
: > :> You should make each post stand on its own for meaning and context.
: > :
: > : Why?
: >
: > Because many newsfeeds are incomplete or have posts arrive out
: > of order. (For one reason.)
:
: Then get as active in chiding people who do not snip as you are in chiding
: people for top-posting.
1. I'm not that active either way. But when someone starts defending
top-posting, I will come in with the answers why it's bad.
2. Lack of snippage isn't as serious a problem for the reader as
top-posting anyway.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 08:03:33
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
(snip)
> :
> : Then get as active in chiding people who do not snip as you are in chiding
> : people for top-posting.
>
> 1. I'm not that active either way. But when someone starts defending
> top-posting, I will come in with the answers why it's bad.
>
> 2. Lack of snippage isn't as serious a problem for the reader as
> top-posting anyway.
>
wouldn't it be cool if there was a newsreader that would automatically
pop you to the latest posted verbage in a preview pane regardless of
where it was? I'm getting carpal tunnel from scrolling with the wheel :)
Dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 16:25:05
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: (snip)
: > :
: > : Then get as active in chiding people who do not snip as you are in chiding
: > : people for top-posting.
: >
: > 1. I'm not that active either way. But when someone starts defending
: > top-posting, I will come in with the answers why it's bad.
: >
: > 2. Lack of snippage isn't as serious a problem for the reader as
: > top-posting anyway.
:
: wouldn't it be cool if there was a newsreader that would automatically
: pop you to the latest posted verbage in a preview pane regardless of
: where it was? I'm getting carpal tunnel from scrolling with the wheel :)
CLI newsreaders >>>> GUI newsreaders :-p
(tin user since 1993)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 20:42:51
From: rich
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3fh2qaIo0dN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> 1. I'm not that active either way. But when someone starts defending
> top-posting, I will come in with the answers why it's bad.
>
> 2. Lack of snippage isn't as serious a problem for the reader as
> top-posting anyway.
Depends on the reader. I don't mind top posting much but I abhor scrolling
through 10 copies of one of Randi's posts with innocuous comments at the
end.
I still don't see the big deal in getting purity of sequence. I mean, we
are talking about golf, not going through the steps for a heart transplant
or the steps for building a thermonuclear device. (Oooops, with that
trigger a Homeland Security monitor?)
Rich
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:11:23
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
: If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
: follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you have
: already read?
It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
when the standards for followups were established.
Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:43:46
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Standards change over time, you should too.
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
> : follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you have
> : already read?
>
> It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
> when the standards for followups were established.
>
> Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:53:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
>Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> : If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
>> : follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you have
>> : already read?
>>
>> It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
>> when the standards for followups were established.
>>
>> Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
It's even more reasonable to clip the unnecessary part of the post to
which you're responding.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:31:42
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>> responding.
works OK here???
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:35:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:31:42 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>works OK here???
works for me :-)
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:00:12
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
I'm with ya on that point.
Concise editing can really make the post.
The tough part is not snipping so as to distort.
This becomes more difficult when so many inputs are intermingled and
difficult to seperate.
Otto
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:0ag9g25f1nmtjfhr5oh4e9s9t1c620j9aj@4ax.com...
> It's even more reasonable to clip the unnecessary part of the post to
> which you're responding.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:15:17
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Top Vs Bottom posting is an ongoing issue.
20+ year old standards are ok for you?
Think of where the technology and the internet has come since 1986. Think
of where it has come since 1996. 2001. 2003.
With a view as a non-computer type, the bottom posting seems inefficient. So
much repetitive noise from so many authors from so many posts.
If you want to follow standards of 20 years ago in our current environment,
by all means, knock yourself out.
Something to consider:
The greatest lessons are learned when one knows everything.
Otto
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f4qs8IerqN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
< Otto snipped top vs bottom posting issues >
> It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
> when the standards for followups were established.
>
> Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:34:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
: Top Vs Bottom posting is an ongoing issue.
:
: 20+ year old standards are ok for you?
Yes, when the reasons for which they were established are
still applicable.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:37:49
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
There is a slight chicken and egg question here. The UNIX file system was
optimized for appending to the end of file which is why newsreaders bottom
posted. Many consider the bottom posting as a so-called standard simply a
rationalization for doing what the computer forced them to do. There are
businesses and other organizations that insist on top-posting email replies
so recipients can focus on the message without paging down unless necessary.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3f4qs8IerqN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read
> the
> : follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you
> have
> : already read?
>
> It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
> when the standards for followups were established.
>
> Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:46:47
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"The UNIX file system was optimized for appending to the end of file
which is why newsreaders bottom posted." I think you need to read this
again and rethink the statement I quoted.
sfb wrote:
> There is a slight chicken and egg question here. The UNIX file system was
> optimized for appending to the end of file which is why newsreaders bottom
> posted. Many consider the bottom posting as a so-called standard simply a
> rationalization for doing what the computer forced them to do. There are
> businesses and other organizations that insist on top-posting email replies
> so recipients can focus on the message without paging down unless necessary.
>
>
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3f4qs8IerqN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> Otto <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> : If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read
>> the
>> : follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you
>> have
>> : already read?
>>
>> It's not like this discussion happened already 20+ years ago
>> when the standards for followups were established.
>>
>> Oh, wait, yes it is. It's exactly like that.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Bellomy
>> C-List Charter Member
>> http://clist.org/
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:07:40
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:6vydnT7hXatNPJnYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> There is a slight chicken and egg question here. The UNIX file system was
> optimized for appending to the end of file which is why newsreaders bottom
> posted. Many consider the bottom posting as a so-called standard simply a
> rationalization for doing what the computer forced them to do.
Sounds like a geek rut to me.
> There are businesses and other organizations that insist on top-posting
> email replies so recipients can focus on the message without paging down
> unless necessary.
Top posting is easier to focus on.
Otto
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:33:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:11:10 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>If you are involved in a thread, don't you think it is easier to read the
>follow on posts on top as opposed to having to scroll through stuff you have
>already read?
I agree. People browsing through messages are unlikely to page down
to see if there is anything new. But those aren't the only two
choices. Software allows us to find the quoted message - so we can
edit down most of the quoted message keeping just the essentials.
In the rare occasions when I have a good reason for keeping a long
post, I will top post - stating that there is a long quote to follow.
That way others don't need to page down to look for new information.
But in the vast majority of cases, there is no reason for extensive
quoting.
In most of the cases where I do want a long quote, it is because I am
responding to several different paragraphs in the quoted message. In
that case, top posting is inappropriate as well. Mid posting works
best so that you can see which response is to which statement. This
is conversational.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:50:58
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
I'm a non-techy top poster who is chained to the monopoly called Microsoft.
Bottom posting is inconvenient for me to follow on many posts. I bypass the
long scrolls.
Midposting is the best of all worlds for me and brings in the converstional
attribute.
Mid posting is difficult to impossible to do when large amounts of multiple
posts by multiple authors litter the thread for dozens of pages.
Otto
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:ic49g25hbu5uunj8inm6ne38m0fe3pscf6@4ax.com...
> Mid posting works
> best so that you can see which response is to which statement. This
> is conversational.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 06:10:29
From: rich
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about Pelz
explaining how he could be so spectacularly wrong about his man Phil
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:33:44
From: Shintaro
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
rich wrote:
> When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about Pelz
> explaining how he could be so spectacularly wrong about his man Phil
>
> Rich
>
>
Took the words right out of my mouth.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 00:16:33
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:p%NMg.2913$xh3.2010@trnddc01...
>
> When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about
> Pelz explaining how he could be so spectacularly wrong about his man Phil
>
> Rich
ditto
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:50:10
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you don't
> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
backwards is everything when post a follow you can How?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:06:30
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
None of it looks backwards to me.
Perhaps you have dislexic software?
Otto
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1157932210.819937.173600@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Otto wrote:
>> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you
>> don't
>> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
>
> backwards is everything when post a follow you can How?
>
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:09:22
From: Tranny
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> Otto wrote:
>> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you don't
>> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
>
> backwards is everything when post a follow you can How?
Tawt! OOps, I mean TWAT!
Tran
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:26:59
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157889784.293607.241630@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Otto wrote:
> >> The disaster holes are part of their handicap.
> >>
> >> You can't just count the "good holes".
> >>
> >> Otto
> >>
> >>
> >> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1157849624.413245.87110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> >> > the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> >> > screws them up.
> >
> > Please fix your own top post.
> >
> > He isn't saying that it shouldn't count, he's saying that correcting
> > those disaster holes by understanding what causes them in the first
> > place will bring ones handicap down 2-5 strokes.
> >
> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you don't
> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
And it's all about you right? It is a USENET convention to
interlace (place your comments after the relavent quoted material).
This
convention predates you or your participation in USENET. If you don't
like the established ettiquette, either leave, or follow the rules for
changing
the rules.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:55:57
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1157981219.703222.210400@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> And it's all about you right?
No.
> It is a USENET convention to
> interlace (place your comments after the relavent quoted material).
Mid posting generally works pretty good as long as posters edit properly.
Most here do NOT.
> This
> convention predates you or your participation in USENET.
Yes.
> If you don't
> like the established ettiquette, either leave, or follow the rules for
> changing
> the rules.
How do I change the rules?
Bottom posting on long, unedited threads is way outdated.
Otto
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:58:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:55:57 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>Mid posting generally works pretty good as long as posters edit properly.
>Most here do NOT.
Creating a new posting rule for those who aren't interested in
following rules or editing is kind of pointless.
So the argument is - do these rules work for the rest of us?
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 18:11:09
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:2jvgg2155n0fj9qt5hikh9dfhka59s0rp7@4ax.com...
> So the argument is - do these rules work for the rest of us?
What works better for you?:
A bottom post at the end of many pages and authors
or
A conversational mid post directed at the author of a specific point
Otto
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:38:14
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:11:09 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>> So the argument is - do these rules work for the rest of us?
>
>
>What works better for you?:
>
>
>A bottom post at the end of many pages and authors
>
>or
>
>A conversational mid post directed at the author of a specific point
Conversational. If I don't see the reply, I usually skip the
message. But most people who advocate bottom posting are fine with
mid posting.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 12:37:40
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Otto" wrote:
> What works better for you?:
> A bottom post at the end of many pages and authors
<snip >
Unlike some folks here, you can <snip > out irrelevant material.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:18:52
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> After being rained out with fellow RSGer Gary Hayenga today with 6
> holes in, I got home to a nice surprise of the new Dave Pelz Damage
> Control book at my doorstep. I through the first couple of chapters
> and it's in excellent Pelz style, presenting you with statistics,
> followed up by the proper way to play to those stats.
>
> Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
>
> 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> trouble.
>
> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>
> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
> help you decide on the proper shot
>
> 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
>
> I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing what else he
> comes up with, but it looks promising (although the shot pattern
> comparing Phil's 4-wood to the average player is a bit disheartening).
IMHO the best course management practice is to discuss your shot aloud
with a partner (or a caddy if you are lucky!). When you actually hear
yourself saying "I'm going to hit this 5 wood from this 6 inch rough,
round the trees and over the water onto the green" you realise how
stupid it sounds. We often do it when playing foursomes (alternate
shot). It's even more important then because the other guy has to deal
with the consequences. Just talking through the shot makes you think
more clearly.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:39:04
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Simon wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> IMHO the best course management practice is to discuss your shot aloud
> with a partner (or a caddy if you are lucky!). When you actually hear
> yourself saying "I'm going to hit this 5 wood from this 6 inch rough,
> round the trees and over the water onto the green" you realise how
> stupid it sounds. We often do it when playing foursomes (alternate
> shot). It's even more important then because the other guy has to deal
> with the consequences. Just talking through the shot makes you think
> more clearly.
>
Simon,
Many years ago, quite by accident, I discovered your approach, initially
for fairway shots that I wanted to work left or right. Somehow, just
the act of speaking it aloud reinforces the intent for some part of the
brain, improves visualization and, I find, that a successful shot is
more likely.
Somewhat the same thing for a recovery shot. In my case, it is a little
different in that I am not trying something that I can't pull off
successfully at least 90 - 95% of the time. For this scenario I use the
expression, "No hero shots, Joe" spoken aloud, as I am sizing up the
situation. Keeps me from even thinking about doing something stupid.
Sidebar to Otto,
Not everyone is on a broadband connection! What are the implications?
Think it through now.
USENET has a place, especially when you don't want to waste time
flipping screens on a web based interface. I have a high speed
connection and still prefer to get all my mail and newsgroups in a
"standard, non web format.
Change is not always improvement, as anyone bedded to Microsoft should
understand.
By the way Otto, assuming you are in the US, where is the gas pedal in
your car? And how long have they been putting it there? Why?
Joe
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:07:12
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 05:09:51 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A shot pattern is simply where your balls go. Hit 100 7 irons from a
> >perfect flat lie, and a pattern will develop. Most players have
> >tendencies: pull hook, weak fade, etc. Now hit a 7 iron from a
> >crappy lie, and that pattern widens. Understanding where the shot is
> >most likely to go will help you develop a system in recovering from a
> >bad situation instead of making it worse.
>
> Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
> different pattern will develop.
I would bet it wouldn't, unless you're going through swing changes.
Most slicers don't suddenly start hitting hooks a couple of weeks
later. Most guys that hit the ball fat don't start suddenly hitting
them thin.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 02:04:14
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On 11 Sep 2006 05:07:12 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> Trouble is, if I hit 100 7 irons a couple of weeks later, a very
>> different pattern will develop.
>
>I would bet it wouldn't, unless you're going through swing changes.
That I am. I've been working hard at getting better and am in a
position where I am seeing improvements - combined with a time when I
have some physical problems with setbacks.
I need a pro's eyes fairly often as I often over-follow his advice. If
I need to move my hands down, I get into my "natural" position and
move my hands down. I continue to do this when my "natural" position
changes.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:04:47
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> No.
>
> I read the current post and if the context is clear, I never reference the
> previously read articles.
>
> It's much easier and faster.
>
> Otto
>
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157975707.201621.203190@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Really? Do you read bottom to top? What language is that?
You realize other people read posts, and that Google archives
everything, right?
But fuck everyone else, as long is you're OK.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:52:17
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1157976287.456530.128920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> You realize other people read posts, and that Google archives
> everything, right?
Yes. Like a bulletin board that never gets cleaned up.
> But fuck everyone else, as long is you're OK.
No.
Crazy thing is, in 9 years on these boards, this is the only one that is so
prickly about it.
Nothing like flexible, open minds.
Otto
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 04:55:07
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> None of it looks backwards to me.
>
> Perhaps you have dislexic software?
>
> Otto
>
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157932210.819937.173600@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Otto wrote:
> >> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you
> >> don't
> >> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
> >
> > backwards is everything when post a follow you can How?
> >
Really? Do you read bottom to top? What language is that?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 08:02:02
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
USNET Performance Language
Larry Bud wrote:
> Otto wrote:
>> None of it looks backwards to me.
>>
>> Perhaps you have dislexic software?
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157932210.819937.173600@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Otto wrote:
>>>> Fix what? I didn't know my post was broken. If it is top posting you
>>>> don't
>>>> like, plonk me. I prefer top posts.
>>> backwards is everything when post a follow you can How?
>>>
>
> Really? Do you read bottom to top? What language is that?
>
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:49:59
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
What's that?
Otto
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:MbidnVbsZeynzZjYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> USNET Performance Language
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:57:53
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
No.
I read the current post and if the context is clear, I never reference the
previously read articles.
It's much easier and faster.
Otto
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1157975707.201621.203190@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Really? Do you read bottom to top? What language is that?
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 08:53:48
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Parinella wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > > Along this line, does anyone carry a low iron specifically for punch
> > > shots? I replaced my 3-iron with a hybrid which gets the ball into the
> > > air very well and also got rid of the 4-iron, but then added the 4-iron
> > > back for punch shots. I'll use the 4-iron for a full shot maybe once
> > > every four rounds, so I wouldn't mind dropping it again.
> >
> > You should be putting the ball way back in your stance anyway, and a 5
> > iron will be easily delofted to a 3.
>
> The ball is back, I'm keeping my hands low, I'm restricting my
> backswing. The ball is staying _relatively_ low, but it still gets a
> little bit into the air. It seems that too little loft is not a
> problem. I was just wondering whether those who actually have time for
> more than 1 or 2 rounds a month have come across this dilemma and made
> a decision.
I play to a 5 (hey, I'm a 4.4 now, it was just updated today!), about
12 rounds a month. I still carry a 4 iron and use that or the 5
depending on the lie.
Have you tried using the hybrid to punch out with?
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 08:31:54
From: Parinella
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > Along this line, does anyone carry a low iron specifically for punch
> > shots? I replaced my 3-iron with a hybrid which gets the ball into the
> > air very well and also got rid of the 4-iron, but then added the 4-iron
> > back for punch shots. I'll use the 4-iron for a full shot maybe once
> > every four rounds, so I wouldn't mind dropping it again.
>
> You should be putting the ball way back in your stance anyway, and a 5
> iron will be easily delofted to a 3.
The ball is back, I'm keeping my hands low, I'm restricting my
backswing. The ball is staying _relatively_ low, but it still gets a
little bit into the air. It seems that too little loft is not a
problem. I was just wondering whether those who actually have time for
more than 1 or 2 rounds a month have come across this dilemma and made
a decision.
fwiw, I play to about a 10, play in the Northeast US where there are a
lot of trees on the course, am a little wild off the tee sometimes, and
so probably have 2-3 times per round where I would want to hit a punch
shot.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:04:57
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
I carry a 3 iron and use it for any shot with an effective length of 200
yards.
I also use it for punch shots.
Dump a hybrid and put a 3 iron in your bag. If you like, dump another hybrid
and put a 2 iron in your bag.
Otto
"Parinella" <parinell@shelltown.com > wrote in message
news:1158075114.830491.13500@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> The ball is back, I'm keeping my hands low, I'm restricting my
> backswing. The ball is staying _relatively_ low, but it still gets a
> little bit into the air. It seems that too little loft is not a
> problem. I was just wondering whether those who actually have time for
> more than 1 or 2 rounds a month have come across this dilemma and made
> a decision.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:29:35
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
> Along this line, does anyone carry a low iron specifically for punch
> shots? I replaced my 3-iron with a hybrid which gets the ball into the
> air very well and also got rid of the 4-iron, but then added the 4-iron
> back for punch shots. I'll use the 4-iron for a full shot maybe once
> every four rounds, so I wouldn't mind dropping it again.
You should be putting the ball way back in your stance anyway, and a 5
iron will be easily delofted to a 3.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 11:53:04
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
>> Along this line, does anyone carry a low iron specifically for punch
>> shots? I replaced my 3-iron with a hybrid which gets the ball into the
>> air very well and also got rid of the 4-iron, but then added the 4-iron
>> back for punch shots. I'll use the 4-iron for a full shot maybe once
>> every four rounds, so I wouldn't mind dropping it again.
>
> You should be putting the ball way back in your stance anyway, and a 5
> iron will be easily delofted to a 3.
>
I carry a 3 iron mainly for punch shots. I actually use it mainly for punch
shots that have to fade, since delofting a higher club will usually give me
a pretty good draw and I'll punch with the 4 or 5 if a draw will work, but
if I need something that will stay low and go right the 3 iron is a better
bet. Given a chance at a normal shot of that distance I'll hit the 7 wood.
I have no particular reason not to carry the 3 since I haven't been
interested in relacing it with another club.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:21:00
From: Parinella
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Simon wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> IMHO the best course management practice is to discuss your shot aloud
> with a partner (or a caddy if you are lucky!). When you actually hear
> yourself saying "I'm going to hit this 5 wood from this 6 inch rough,
> round the trees and over the water onto the green" you realise how
> stupid it sounds. We often do it when playing foursomes (alternate
> shot). It's even more important then because the other guy has to deal
> with the consequences. Just talking through the shot makes you think
> more clearly.
My rule of thumb is that if it's a shot that I will want to brag to
someone about afterwards, it's a very bad idea.
But going back to Pelz's point, I may know how to hit a punch shot and
keep it low, but unless I practice it, I don't know how low it will go.
I have had several shots recently that I thought would sneak under a
tree but caught a branch.
Along this line, does anyone carry a low iron specifically for punch
shots? I replaced my 3-iron with a hybrid which gets the ball into the
air very well and also got rid of the 4-iron, but then added the 4-iron
back for punch shots. I'll use the 4-iron for a full shot maybe once
every four rounds, so I wouldn't mind dropping it again.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:35:46
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1157981219.703222.210400@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > It is a USENET convention to
> > interlace (place your comments after the relavent quoted material).
>
>
> Mid posting generally works pretty good as long as posters edit properly.
> Most here do NOT.
Top posting doesn't work at all if editing isn't done correctly.
[snip]
> Bottom posting on long, unedited threads is way outdated.
Unedited threads were always contrary to USENET conventions.
Using one violation of conventions to justify another violation is
"two wrongs make a right" kinda logic and don't work. If you
don't want to edit, don't post.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:30:44
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1158168946.859487.99960@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> If you
> don't want to edit, don't post.
I'll buy that.
Otto
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:59:29
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157976287.456530.128920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > You realize other people read posts, and that Google archives
> > everything, right?
>
>
>
> Yes. Like a bulletin board that never gets cleaned up.
>
>
> > But fuck everyone else, as long is you're OK.
>
>
> No.
>
> Crazy thing is, in 9 years on these boards, this is the only one that is so
> prickly about it.
>
> Nothing like flexible, open minds.
It's not a matter of being flexible, it's a matter of following
standards and norms. Like I said, you might as well write a newspaper
column with the last paragraph starting first.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:10:35
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158159569.152845.210620@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>Like I said, you might as well write a newspaper
> column with the last paragraph starting first.
Or write an ongoing series over the course of several newspapers.
Do you start from the beginning in each additional issue?
or
Do you assume the reader read the first the installment, has some semblance
of memory or the ability to go back and reread, and in most cases would
prefer to simply read the next installment.
Or
If the follow-on installment expounds on 1 of 20 points previously made,
perhaps simply quote the 1 point (editing).
Otto
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:55:05
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:10:35 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>Do you start from the beginning in each additional issue?
>
>or
>
>Do you assume the reader read the first the installment, has some semblance
>of memory or the ability to go back and reread, and in most cases would
>prefer to simply read the next installment.
A simple reminder usually works. Occasionally, I go back to check on
something if it isn't much work.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:15:35
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158159569.152845.210620@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >Like I said, you might as well write a newspaper
> > column with the last paragraph starting first.
>
> Or write an ongoing series over the course of several newspapers.
>
> Do you start from the beginning in each additional issue?
No, they edit previous versions and present a summary FIRST.
TV does the same thing. "Previously, on LA Law....." I guess
you'd put it at the end 'cause you saw last weeks episode.
> or
>
> Do you assume the reader read the first the installment, has some semblance
> of memory or the ability to go back and reread, and in most cases would
> prefer to simply read the next installment.
>
The former. Furthermore, this is USENET where posts come in
different orders to different people, occasionally even on different
days.
> Or
>
> If the follow-on installment expounds on 1 of 20 points previously made,
> perhaps simply quote the 1 point (editing).
You quote the one point, and add you comments after it. That's
the
USENET convention. It's kinda like following etiquette in golf. It's
not
exactly part of the rules, but you are expected to follow them.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:16:27
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1158171335.367678.121340@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> The former. Furthermore, this is USENET where posts come in
> different orders to different people, occasionally even on different
> days.
I was not aware of this. My server sends mine in apparent order. Usually
within a few seconds of being posted. Some post are never received.
> You quote the one point, and add you comments after it. That's
> the
> USENET convention.
What is the convention for creditting the point to the approriate author? On
many of the long, uneditted threads it is nearly impossible to determine who
said what in the middle of some of these threads. I would consider it rude
to cite a point and credit it to the wrong author.
> It's kinda like following etiquette in golf. It's
> not
> exactly part of the rules, but you are expected to follow them.
So if I edit a post to a line or two plus the author credit and I top post,
do most readers show the entire post in their preview window? I use OE and
if someone edits good and top posts to a single point, it is very easy and
quick to continue with no scroll.
On the opposite, if no editing is done and they bottom post, it takes
forever to scroll and sort it out and I move on. I realize that is not 30
year old convention but is it better?
Otto
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 05:01:15
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Otto wrote:
> <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1158171335.367678.121340@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > The former. Furthermore, this is USENET where posts come in
> > different orders to different people, occasionally even on different
> > days.
>
> I was not aware of this. My server sends mine in apparent order. Usually
> within a few seconds of being posted. Some post are never received.
The structure of USENET is rather complex but suffice it to say
that
the order in which posts are recieved upon the server that you use
is a function of that servers "internet distance" from the server of
origin. It's a world wide structure and that distance can be quite
large.
As a corallary, consider a piece of mail that you leave for your
postman in your box. The time it arrives in Peoria is going to be
a function of many factors which may result in days difference
than a guy who drops his off at the post office in NYC.
> > You quote the one point, and add you comments after it. That's
> > the USENET convention.
>
> What is the convention for creditting the point to the approriate author? On
> many of the long, uneditted threads it is nearly impossible to determine who
> said what in the middle of some of these threads. I would consider it rude
> to cite a point and credit it to the wrong author.
It is the problem with participating in long, poorly edited threads.
It
can be difficult to ensure that the person being credited is the person
whom actually made the comment. It is one of the reasons I often
delete
out most of thread history. Besides, how many " >>>" can one really
track accurately.
> > It's kinda like following etiquette in golf. It's not
> > exactly part of the rules, but you are expected to follow them.
>
> So if I edit a post to a line or two plus the author credit and I top post,
> do most readers show the entire post in their preview window?
"Most" users don't use a "preview window". One thing that has
been demonstrated over and over in USENET is that there is
no "most". There is rarely a majority and there are only pluralities.
> I use OE and
> if someone edits good and top posts to a single point, it is very easy and
> quick to continue with no scroll.
You have a very MS view of USENET. USENET predates
the web and the internet by a good decade or so. For that matter
it predates Windoze as well.
> On the opposite, if no editing is done and they bottom post, it takes
> forever to scroll and sort it out and I move on. I realize that is not 30
> year old convention but is it better?
If no editing is done, it has already violated USENET conventions.
I frequently correct both top posting and poor editing when I add
comments
to a thread. Other peoples errors are not an excuse for me to
perpetuate them.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:50:09
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
long&left wrote:
[snip]
> I agree :-P
You are a bad man. A very, very bad man. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 10:33:10
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
better than being a top poster I guess :)
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> long&left wrote:
> [snip]
>> I agree :-P
>
> You are a bad man. A very, very bad man. ;-)
>
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 20:38:43
From: rich
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1158339009.204967.323500@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> long&left wrote:
> [snip]
>> I agree :-P
>
> You are a bad man. A very, very bad man. ;-)
>
But funny.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:05:03
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
long&left wrote:
[snip]
> I've often wondered why USENET folks don't have much of a problem with
> scrolling down 300 lines to see an "I agree" post at the bottom
Actually, we do, and you will see an occasional response to such
things.
> but get
> mighty agitated if one top posts even with a healthy removal of quantity
> of typage .
Generally, I only see comments about top posting ALONG WITH
an addition to the discussion at had. i.e. no one goes out of their
way JUST to comment on the top post, it's usually presented as an
aside. Folks who quote 300 lines and add an "I agree" aren't worth
responding to in the first place so their overall behavior goes
unnoted.
> I am (or try to be) and active snipper of worthless verbage
> that doesn't have anything to do with what my post reply says but I
> frankly see a lot of use in top posting. I don't do it because I stay
> the norm mostly...but it is inviting :)
Poor editing is the #1 problem on USENET but it is also not
as clear cut. And some folks get darn right insulted when you
cut their wonderful prose and leave say a single sentence. Usually
the complaint is "well what you snipped though gave it a different
context". So it is easier to "correct" top posting than bad editing
because it is clear cut (and yet we still can't get people to
understand).
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:11:57
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> long&left wrote:
> [snip]
>> I've often wondered why USENET folks don't have much of a problem with
>> scrolling down 300 lines to see an "I agree" post at the bottom
>
> Actually, we do, and you will see an occasional response to such
> things.
>
>> but get
>> mighty agitated if one top posts even with a healthy removal of quantity
>> of typage .
>
> Generally, I only see comments about top posting ALONG WITH
> an addition to the discussion at had. i.e. no one goes out of their
> way JUST to comment on the top post, it's usually presented as an
> aside. Folks who quote 300 lines and add an "I agree" aren't worth
> responding to in the first place so their overall behavior goes
> unnoted.
>
>> I am (or try to be) and active snipper of worthless verbage
>> that doesn't have anything to do with what my post reply says but I
>> frankly see a lot of use in top posting. I don't do it because I stay
>> the norm mostly...but it is inviting :)
>
> Poor editing is the #1 problem on USENET but it is also not
> as clear cut. And some folks get darn right insulted when you
> cut their wonderful prose and leave say a single sentence. Usually
> the complaint is "well what you snipped though gave it a different
> context". So it is easier to "correct" top posting than bad editing
> because it is clear cut (and yet we still can't get people to
> understand).
>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I agree :-P
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 00:24:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
On 15 Sep 2006 09:05:03 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
> Poor editing is the #1 problem on USENET but it is also not
>as clear cut.
It is a subset of "being rude". I think lots of posters don't
really believe that their responders are real people.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 20:53:27
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:lvgmg259bmi52nvitonjeeffaj2f5guro1@4ax.com...
>I think lots of posters don't
> really believe that their responders are real people.
This persepective also leads to name calling and other "keyboard commando"
behavior.
Otto
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 08:54:44
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Dave Pelz's Damage Control
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> After being rained out with fellow RSGer Gary Hayenga today with 6
> holes in, I got home to a nice surprise of the new Dave Pelz Damage
> Control book at my doorstep. I through the first couple of chapters
> and it's in excellent Pelz style, presenting you with statistics,
> followed up by the proper way to play to those stats.
>
> Dave comes to some conclusions based on data he's collected:
>
> 1) Most golfers play 2-5 strokes better than their handicap for most of
> the round (15-17 holes) and that those other "disaster" holes is what
> screws them up.
>
> 2) That it's not the shot that got you into trouble from a perfect lie
> that is the problem, it's the recovery shot that gets you into MORE
> trouble.
>
> 3) Most players don't know how to hit recovery shots (setup, swing
> change, etc) and certainly never practice them.
>
> 4) Everybody has a shot pattern, and learning your shot pattern will
> help you decide on the proper shot
>
> 5) A properly executed recovery shot doesn't have to be perfect, it
> just has to be good enough. And if executed properly, it will put you
> in a better position than if you hit the previous shot perfectly.
>
> I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing what else he
> comes up with, but it looks promising (although the shot pattern
> comparing Phil's 4-wood to the average player is a bit disheartening).
A really great way to learn those things is to play a format in which
your partner is a really good golfer--at least for 6 holes. If you
can get a very long handicapper or a pro to play with your group he
will coach and counsel as necessary to prevent his high handicapper
partner from trying stupid shots. Playing with a bet that makes it
interesting for him might be a good idea, ha
Larry
|
|
