| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2006 23:48:01
From: Joe
Subject: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
This drives me nuts in this group. (Along with a few other writings by
our resident nut jobs.)
Some of our other while seemingly educated folks have adopted this
illiteracy. From the urban dictionary; The only place that I could
find it.
1. noone
Meaning "no one". Perhaps inspired by the word "nobody".
Most commonly used by people who acquired their literary skills in
online chat rooms.
2. noone
The incorrect combination of "No one". Also, an older English spelling
of the the word "noon".
Joe
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 01:42:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:48:01 GMT, Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net >
wrote:
>1. noone
>
>
>Meaning "no one". Perhaps inspired by the word "nobody".
I read it to sound like "noon", only with a stronger "u" sound. It is
irritating.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 00:48:10
From: uncle k
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
"Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote in message
> This drives me nuts in this group. (Along with a few other writings by
> our resident nut jobs.)
> ............
> 2. noone The incorrect combination of "No one". Also, an older English
> spelling of the the word "noon".
Gouda point, Joe. But, it leaves me wondering if "nut jobs" should be
hyphenated, for clarity.
;-{
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 19:46:22
From: long&left
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
uncle k wrote:
> "Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net> wrote in message
>
>> This drives me nuts in this group. (Along with a few other writings by
>> our resident nut jobs.)
>> ............
>> 2. noone The incorrect combination of "No one". Also, an older English
>> spelling of the the word "noon".
>
> Gouda point, Joe. But, it leaves me wondering if "nut jobs" should be
> hyphenated, for clarity.
>
> ;-{
>
>
you-da-man-Ken-for-clarity!
signed,
nut-job
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 17:41:20
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Simple way to check lie angle of clubs
|
uncle k wrote:
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> >>....................
> >> Interesting, but pretty meaningless, as it relates to lie angle. Firs=
t,
> >> you'd need to plumb the line on the ball.
>
> > .................... It's not difficult to set the ball on the tee or
> > ground with the line vertical (orr damned near too it).
>
> (not using your stutter-checker, I see) You mean within "a few degrees,
> +/-?" Strike me dead, if that's not what I said. BTW, IF you set it on =
the
> ground, it could, and very well may, tilt, ever so slightly... let's say a
> few degrees, +/-, just for fun.
Let's say 1 or 3 degrees...
>
> >> Next, who among us (OK, besides
> >> Rude Dog) delivers the clubface with the blade absolutely square to
> >> horizontal, every time?
> >
> > The point is... noone can deliver the club square to the horizontal
> > with consistency unless the lie angle is very close to correct.
>
> Actually, Byron Nelson came pretty close...
Not with ill fitting clubs...
> Iron Byron can do this, all
> day.
Only if Iron Byron is adjusted to the club... or the club adjusted to
Iron Byron. Otherwise he will swing it the same degree off horizontal
every time.
> You keep making my point. When does the arguement begin?
>
> >I will
> > agree that the sample size of 1 described above can't confirm anything.
>
> You're still agreeing. Oh the humanity!
You never said that, at least not in so many words. I did.
>
> > You need to repeat it several times (maybe 15 or 20) to get a true
> > picture.
>
> And if, on that particular day, your swing just happened to be a few degr=
ees
> (+/-) steeper, or flatter than normal, or if you were lining up just a
> nut-hair forward or back of normal, or if your shoes had a thicker/thinner
> sole, or.................... you could hit 200 balls and still get a
> meaningless result.
And how would that differ from any other method of checking it?
>
> >> The margin for error is probably a few degrees
> >> +/-... which is equal to/beyond typical lie adjustments.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow that statement. The lie adustment of any iron is
> > infinite within the range that it can be adjusted without breaking
> > it??? You can go trial and error until you get it where it needs to be.
>
> What part of a "typical" lie adjustment don't you understand?
Well I took it to mean that you think that it is not possible to set a
club to exactly x.y degrees or that you think it is impossible to
determine that you need x.y degrees or both. Your followup doesn't
clear this up?
> I'd say
> typical is a few degrees, +/-..... anything beyond that is getting
> atypical.
How much is a few?
>
> >> A
> >> non-perpendicular result might just mean you stood too close, or too f=
ar
> >> away, on that particular swing. On the other hand, if you're getting
> >> consistently radical results.......
> >
> > That's why you need a larger sample size. So what is acceptable for a
> > 10 handiap golfer... (5 of 10) or (7 of 10) or what?
>
> Maybe 400 balls a day, for a year. This wouldn't be the first time you've
> battled me over mere semantics, Dud. For instance: You show up, set up,
> hit 10 balls. 7 out of 10 leave a mark which indicates your lie is too
> flat. Or does it? Who's to say you weren't just standing a little taller
> than normal that day, for fear of leaving potato skin skid-marks in your
> boxers? You bend your clubs to fit that moment in time? Then the hemis
> settle down and you bring a different swing to the course. Now you either
> need to bend them back, or reinsert the skins. Not a pretty choice.
So it's not necessarily a good idea to make changes based on the
results of one particular day. I'll conceed that. But what if you have
results over a period of time that indicates the lie is too upright...
would you consider altering the lie then... or just play 'em as is?
I'll also agree that there is 2 ways to go... adjust the clubs to the
swing or the swing to the club.
>
> > This method sounds as valid to me as tape on the sole???
>
> Which isn't very valid, either, except that it does protect the sole from
> scratching, to some degree. So, I guess we totally agree. Nevermind.
>
So what you are saying is there is no valid method of
checking/adjusting the lie of a club...
I'm not sure I beliee that?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 17:07:56
From: uncle k
Subject: Re: Simple way to check lie angle of clubs
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
> What part of a "typical" lie adjustment don't you understand?
>>Well I took it to mean that you think that it is not possible to set a
club to exactly x.y degrees or that you think it is impossible to
determine that you need x.y degrees or both. Your followup doesn't
clear this up?
> I'd say typical is a few degrees, +/-..... anything beyond that is
> getting
> atypical.
>>How much is a few?
That would be a somewhere between 2 and 4.... like about 3, give or take.
But, I can't really commit right now.
................................
>>So it's not necessarily a good idea to make changes based on the
results of one particular day. I'll conceed that. But what if you have
results over a period of time that indicates the lie is too upright...
would you consider altering the lie then... or just play 'em as is?
Why, I'd have them adjusted, in that case, assuming my swing was perfect and
the club was the culprit. But honestly, Dud, I care more about where my
ball ends up than how it got there. I'm not doing the test unless you're
willing to stripe the balls and set them up for me.
>>I'll also agree that there is 2 ways to go... adjust the clubs to the
swing or the swing to the club.
It's JMHO, but I believe the vast majority of golfers would do well to find
a swing which fits a standard lie, period. Aside from those who have a
*physical* reason for tweaking lies, only a top tier player can realize any
benefit from same, and even then, it might be too subtle to notice. Bending
a club to compensate for a bad swing is just goofy. I feel the opposite
about bending clubs to achieve optimum lofts. Even so, I've never done it,
choosing rather to know the range of capabilities for each club, and using
them accordingly. Hey, I'm lazy, and it's not a game of perfect.
> > This method sounds as valid to me as tape on the sole???
> Which isn't very valid, either, except that it does protect the sole from
> scratching, to some degree. So, I guess we totally agree. Nevermind.
>>So what you are saying is there is no valid method of
checking/adjusting the lie of a club...
I'm not sure I beliee that?
No, but I would say that finding the "perfect" lie for a given person is
somewhat elusive. I just think you should start from the ground up, which
infers a static check, under controlled parameters... the higher-tech the
better. In short, fit the clubs to your personal build first. Then go to
the range. If you find that properly fitted clubs just won't work for your
swing, tweak away (as opposed to fixing the swing fault). My clubs are
standard lie. When I swing properly, they do what I expect from them. When
I don't, well.......... I wouldn't say a couple degrees, one way or the
other, makes no difference, but there are far more important things to think
about. Back to the OP, I said it was "interesting." It might even be
useful, but more so for detecting impact angle faults than for accurately
checking lie angle.
Sincere apologies to any offended dark-siders,
Unc
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 17:07:54
From: long&left
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
Joe wrote:
> This drives me nuts in this group. (Along with a few other writings by
> our resident nut jobs.)
>
> Some of our other while seemingly educated folks have adopted this
> illiteracy. From the urban dictionary; The only place that I could
> find it.
>
> 1. noone
>
>
> Meaning "no one". Perhaps inspired by the word "nobody".
>
> Most commonly used by people who acquired their literary skills in
> online chat rooms.
>
>
>
>
> 2. noone
>
>
> The incorrect combination of "No one". Also, an older English spelling
> of the the word "noon".
>
> Joe
>
>
kindalikeahrelaxdude...seriously, if that's all that bothers you about
RSG you're in good stead!
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 13:37:01
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
In article <R20Pg.436$q.95@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >
Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote:
Actually Joe, we can all be guilty of writing shortcomings now and then.
Albeit some are "preferred differences of opinion" vs. actual grammatical
mistakes, they are there. Take your post for instance:
1. the parentheses are around an entire sentence which is usually not
seen in most usage. This is not to say it's and outright mistake, just
that it's no widely accepted. You could have reworked that as a sentence
standing alone without the added markings.
2. the sentence "Some of our other while seemingly educated folks have
adopted this illiteracy" should probably have had commas setting off the
"while seemingly educated folks." This might come under the parenthetical
element rule.
3. Next, the sentence "From the urban dictionary; The only place that I
could find it" is bulky and could have used some parentheses except that
you used your quota in your first sentence. Rule says, "there can be only
two parentheses used for every fifty words or fifty words to that point,
whichever comes first." I'm really not sure that the semicolon is proper
there rather than a full blown colon. Then again, a full blown colon
could be classified as a huge fart waiting to happen and wouldn't be
covered under that ruling.
I'm sure many could find usage mistakes in this post but my point is,
give it a rest, accept it for what it is and then noone will get pissed
off.
:-)
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2006 05:40:20
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: No One or Noone Educated or ???
|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:48:01 GMT, Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net >
wrote:
> This drives me nuts in this group. (Along with a few other writings by
> our resident nut jobs.)
>
> Some of our other while seemingly educated folks have adopted this
> illiteracy.
"Other while" instead of "otherwise"?
Drives me nuts in this group.
:-}
|
|
