Ken's not going to like this
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Support Sharon Angle
Next: Hey democrats
From: Lloyd Parsons on 18 Jul 2010 10:54 In article <4c4312ce$0$4972$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:36:20 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > > On Jul 17, 11:30 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:15:41 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > >>> On Jul 17, 10:23 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> He's lived his life as a fool. So he knows no other way of being. > >>> > >>> I have a succssful career. My wife and I own three homes. I have > >>> friends and family who love me. Who's the fool? > >> > >> If you think having three homes gives your life meaning, then you are. > > > > BTW, I am willing to frisch (call off) that bet. Until this year, I > > thought you had the best of it and I was planning on having to pay some > > time in the next five years. Right now, I think it is a 50-50 > > proposition. > > > > Also, you did not mention the other aspects of my life that I cited. > > I don't care about the other aspects of your life. I just want you to > stop annoying everyone here with these endless rants about Tiger. Why? His rants on Tiger are no better or worse than all the political stuff that is a daily thing. -- Lloyd
From: kenpitts on 18 Jul 2010 10:57 On Jul 18, 9:42 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:36:20 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > > On Jul 17, 11:30 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:15:41 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > >>> On Jul 17, 10:23 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > > >>>> He's lived his life as a fool. So he knows no other way of being. > > >>> I have a succssful career. My wife and I own three homes. I have > >>> friends and family who love me. Who's the fool? > > >> If you think having three homes gives your life meaning, then you are. > > > BTW, I am willing to frisch (call off) that bet. Until this year, I > > thought you had the best of it and I was planning on having to pay some > > time in the next five years. Right now, I think it is a 50-50 > > proposition. > > > Also, you did not mention the other aspects of my life that I cited. > > I don't care about the other aspects of your life. I just want you to > stop annoying everyone here with these endless rants about Tiger.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Then why did you feel compelled to comment about the houses we own? It seems that everyone posting here thinks I am supposed to just absob all these attacks without a response. Do you want to call off that bet or not? I'll put you down as approving of Tiger's behavior. Ken
From: R&B on 18 Jul 2010 13:39 On 2010-07-18 00:50:25 -0400, kenpitts said: > On Jul 17, 10:25�pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-17 22:25:34 -0400, Carbon said: >> >>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:50:09 -0500, bknight wrote: >>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:43:15 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts >>>> <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Nobody agrees that Tiger's behavior on the course is bad? >> >>>> For Christ's sake Ken. �Do you see anyone here agreeing with you? DROP >>>> IT, or do you like being raked over and over??? >> >>> Feeds right into his persecution complex. And also his seething resentment >>> of Tiger's success. >> >> Which pre-dates Tiger's success on TOUR. >> >> Let's remember how his rants began right after Tiger signed his first >> deal with Nike just before announcing that he was turning pro in '96. >> >> Ken has continually shifted his reasoning about why he hates Tiger. � >> Like most racists, he's always got an excuse. �But one need only go >> back and read his rants about the "ghetto blasters" that Tiger helped >> bring to the golf course (in the form of young black people newly >> interested in golf) to get a clear picture as to why Ken really hates >> Tiger. >> >> For the record, I've never actually seen or heard a ghetto blaster on a >> golf course. �Have you? >> >> Randy > > That was an unfortunate post. But, there is never any forgiveness or > understanding for me around here. Mostly relentless attackers like you > and Baker and cheerleaders who I thought were friends of mine. > > Golfers are golfers. The culture is truly color blind. I was mistaken > more than ten years ago. I was afraid of it becoming hoops light. I > was wrong. Of course, once you get branded as a racist there is no > redemption. Unless you are a Democratic senator from West Virginia. So black golfers are okay with you. But black basketball players who play golf are not. Still sounds like you're not exactly color blind, Ken. If anything, you just admitted you're not. > My problems with Tiger are/were: the initial contract with Nike before > he ever hit a shot as a pro, You made that abundantly clear at the time, as if to say he'd done nothing to earn the contract with Nike. Never mind his unprecedented three consecutice US Amateur titles following his three straight Junior Amateur titles. Six straight USGA national championships were not good enough for Ken Pitts. As if Ken Pitts had a vote in the matter. > his behavior on the course and now his > betrayal of his family. His behavior on the course has, at times, been unfortunate. Even he has admitted that. He also dusted off an old tradition that not even your prince, Jack Nicklaus, had adhered to -- namely, taking off his cap to shake hands with his fellow competitors after a round. His respect for the game has never been in question. His strict adherence to a more gentile language standard that only you seem to find all that importance is the only thing in question. Most reasonable people understand that his hot temper is only an indication of how he holds himself to a higher standard than most players. Except for some of the old fogeys who've retired, I've never heard a single professional golfer ever complain about Tiger's language. Seems like it's only relevant if it somehow affects others' play. But apparently it doesn't. It only makes you cry. > That is it with him. But, there are also the > sycophantic, fawning fans and media. And this is, by far, the most unfair of all your criticisms. What, exactly, would you have Tiger do to have his fans not "fawn" over him. You hold Tiger responsible for their behavior. Fine. I'll hold you responsible for BP's behavior in the Gulf. That's about as fair. > If he had not acted as he has for > the entirity of his career, I would have shut it down about him years > ago. You can count the number of times he's thrown a rod on the golf course on two hands (and maybe two feet). And he's played hundreds of rounds, hit thousands of shots, played hundreds of tournaments...all the while, he's had the glare of the camera on him almost every shot, even when he wasn't in contention. Now think about that for a minute. Other players who have hotter tempers than Tiger are rarely shown on TV when they're having a bad day on the course and have played themselves out of contention. Yet the networks show Tiger even when he's not in the mix, even when he's out of contention. Somehow I feel like a lot of those other players show their tempers a little when they're not playing well. But you never see them. So I guess you'll blame Tiger for the networks' propensity for showing him even when he's not in contention, huh? > That said, the only people who have treated me right down thru the > years without exception around here are Eric Strulowitz, David > Laville, Greg Schoneberg, John Pflum and Rob Hamilton. Well, except for Pflum -- and I don't know why he's on the list, other than the fact that he's never had a terse word for ANYONE -- the rest of those people are some of the most disagreeable people in RSG. A true hall of fame that most of us wouldn't want to be a part of. (Kinda sad about Laville; he actually is a smart guy who has always had a lot to offer in the way of useful/helpful golf content. The others? Not so much.) Randy
From: Alan Baker on 18 Jul 2010 15:05 In article <lloydparsons-E23B49.09543318072010(a)port80.individual.net>, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > In article <4c4312ce$0$4972$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:36:20 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 11:30 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:15:41 -0700, kenpitts wrote: > > >>> On Jul 17, 10:23 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> He's lived his life as a fool. So he knows no other way of being. > > >>> > > >>> I have a succssful career. My wife and I own three homes. I have > > >>> friends and family who love me. Who's the fool? > > >> > > >> If you think having three homes gives your life meaning, then you are. > > > > > > BTW, I am willing to frisch (call off) that bet. Until this year, I > > > thought you had the best of it and I was planning on having to pay some > > > time in the next five years. Right now, I think it is a 50-50 > > > proposition. > > > > > > Also, you did not mention the other aspects of my life that I cited. > > > > I don't care about the other aspects of your life. I just want you to > > stop annoying everyone here with these endless rants about Tiger. > > Why? > > His rants on Tiger are no better or worse than all the political stuff > that is a daily thing. They are completely repetitive. At least the political stuff moves from topic to topic. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 18 Jul 2010 15:20
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-231A44.23225117072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > Schoenberg asserted that a number of times. That you live at home with > > your parents. Repeatedly and you never denied it. In that case what do > > you do? I'll go first, I am in the IT department at a major aerospace > > company. > > You failed to answer my question. Answer it. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> Here is what I'm certain of.... 1. Baker is a troll 2. Baker has a lot of time on his hands. 3. Ken exhibits obsessive traits, which makes him look foolish in here. -Greg |