Ken's not going to like this
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Support Sharon Angle
Next: Hey democrats
From: Howard Brazee on 17 Jul 2010 18:40 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:14:10 -0400, "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote: >On balance, even with the fallout of his now well-known indiscretions >that came to light last Winter, it's plain to most everyone but a few >(including you) that Tiger's overall affect on the game has been far >more positive than negative. To most any knowledgeable follower of the >game, that's not even in dispute. That you would hold a different view >just speaks volumes about your own cynicism relative to Tiger, that's >all. While his language isn't classy (again class has nothing to do with right or wrong) - what he did by waiving Tom Watson's group to go ahead and tee of yesterday was classy indeed. And Tiger is responsible to bringing back the old habit of taking off one's hat while shaking hands with opponents after a round of golf. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 17 Jul 2010 18:41 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:44:34 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Who cares about the millions that have been drawn to the game? None of >them play. None of those charities that get money from most tournaments play? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Carbon on 17 Jul 2010 18:57 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:40:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article > <d1205df6-79d4-4cb1-a883-fef30126a54d(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> It was live on NBC USOpen coverage. What if you were watching with >> your wife, mother, mother in law, minister, his wife, daughter? Would >> you be so ready to shrug your shoulders? My nephew (a deacon in a >> major church in Houston) was watching this live with his daughter >> when it happened. > > What of it? I don't feel I need to pretend that such language doesn't > exist. > > Moreover, I'm not a hypocrite who uses such language but then > complains when others do. <rationalization>Yes, but Ken's not on TV.</rationalization>
From: BAR on 17 Jul 2010 19:49 In article <3a0610b1-ff19-46fd-806c- 178d605e514a(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, ken.ptts(a)gmail.com says... > > On Jul 15, 2:30�pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > > >> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > > >> moment in a round. > > > > >I think that is the point. �Today's players know there is a microphone > > >pointed at them. > > > > The question to ask people who object to such language: � Do they > > object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that > > language is broadcast? > > > > If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it > > doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. � It's still a sin. > > But how many people object when their playing companions drop an > > f-bomb? � �Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when > > they are the celebrities that they like)? � �If someone you don't like > > uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like > > them. > > > > -- > > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > > > - James Madison > > I object to both. Tiger always gathers huge galleries. What a dis- > service he does to the game that has given him so much. He could learn > much about how he should carry himself from Phil Mickelson. Give it a rest Ken.
From: kenpitts on 17 Jul 2010 20:01
On Jul 17, 6:49 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <3a0610b1-ff19-46fd-806c- > 178d605e5...(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, ken.p...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2:30 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > > > >> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > > > >> moment in a round. > > > > >I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone > > > >pointed at them. > > > > The question to ask people who object to such language: Do they > > > object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that > > > language is broadcast? > > > > If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it > > > doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. It's still a sin. > > > But how many people object when their playing companions drop an > > > f-bomb? Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when > > > they are the celebrities that they like)? If someone you don't like > > > uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like > > > them. > > > > -- > > > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > > > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > > > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > > > - James Madison > > > I object to both. Tiger always gathers huge galleries. What a dis- > > service he does to the game that has given him so much. He could learn > > much about how he should carry himself from Phil Mickelson. > > Give it a rest Ken.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Go look at who started this thread with my name in it. Why should I roll overand play dead for the likes of him or the lunatic Baker? Ken |