Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 15 Dec 2009 06:49 In article <dpsdi55qbodujmbvhqiddd2cg3ts4umm0c(a)4ax.com>, dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net says... > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:49:48 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> > wrote: > > >> In the case of Tiger Woods, there is plenty of knowledge to base an opinion > >> on. > > > >Question. > > > >Tiger Woods cheated on his wife in myriad ways. > > > >George W. Bush launched a war on false pretenses. > > > >Who's the real villain? Why? > > Liberal tactic #12 - when all else fails change the topic to George > Bush and the war. > > > David Laville, G.S.E.M. > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor It is amazing everyone took the bait.
From: BAR on 15 Dec 2009 06:50 In article <alangbaker-5886C2.22351714122009(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <7onf4oF3jmqihU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message > > news:MfednXcClrivHLvWnZ2dnUVZ_uZi4p2d(a)supernews.com... > > > assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/14/09 11:05 AM: > > > > On 14-Dec-2009, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > > > > >> More people should adopt that attitude, but they aren't smart enough > > > >> to know what they don't know. > > > > > > > > opinions are not knowledge > > > > > > Opinions without knowledge are both utterly pointless and > > > excruciatingly common on Usenet. > > > > In the case of Tiger Woods, there is plenty of knowledge to base an opinion > > on. > > > > -Greg > > No, there isn't actually. > > What actual facts do you have, Greg. Go on: let's see 'em! The court of public opinion is not based upon facts.
From: dsc-ky on 15 Dec 2009 09:34 On Dec 15, 1:37 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <cf6ecf51-cc5d-48a1-923b-fc8775392...(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > opinions are not knowledge > > > > No, but opinions are based on knowledge. > > > Is that really what you meant to say? Would you like to qualify it in > > any way? > > Nope. Opinions are based on knowledge. The difficulty comes when people > try and make more out of what is actually known than is supportable? > > Did Tiger Woods cheat on his wife? Since he said he did, the answer is > almost certainly "Yes.", but is that enough to call him "punk"? > Get your facts straight... I've stated before that I thought he was a punk seveal years ago and I'm all but positive that I said so in RSG years ago. The facts... I didnt' call him a punk for cheating on his wife. I didnt' call him a punk for being a liar. I called him a punk years before any of this for his behavior on the course (primarily). At the time I didn't know he was a liar and a cheater. Knowing that now, surely hasn't done anything to change my mind.
From: dsc-ky on 15 Dec 2009 09:36 On Dec 15, 2:40 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "dsc-ky" <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote in message > > news:60fc11f7-c39b-4d60-9145-28cbcf3c7e1a(a)k32g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 14, 11:21 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:15:06 -0800 (PST), dsc-ky > > > >> You, as happens a lot, misunderstand that I'm not taking up for > > >> anyone. I merely acknowledged that Dudley was wrong, > > > >Well thank you ole wise one... what would we ever do without you to > > >set us all straight? :) > > > You just don't get it. It didn't take great wisdom to figure you out, > > and no one could ever set you straight. You just know everything. > > I never said I know everything. I never even said that I was > absolutely correct about anything regarding Tiger. I just stated a few > facts and expressed an opinion (or several opinions)... which really > seems to set you off for some unknown reason. Some things are facts > (pretty much indisputable)... he's a liar and a cheater for sure. He > has on course outbursts and fits, slams and tosses clubs. He's rich > and he's a great golfer (probably the best ever). Some things are > opinion... he's probably a punk (there is some evidence), but that is > open to debate. Maybe he's just a spoiked brat... what's the > difference? "Pitts was right" is also an opinion (with some evidence > to back it up), yet debatable. Of course that was also bait. That many > want to give him an excuse is also an opinion. Of course you are > welcome to have different opinions and express such here, as is > everyone. Just don't be so surprised if not everyone agree with you. > > If anyone in RSG comes off as someone that knows everything... it > could easily be you. You also contradict yourself... by first saying > that you have to know Tiger very well to have a meaningful opinion, > then cite psychologists that don't know him as having the true > answers. They pretty much have the same info regarding Tiger that we > do. And you seem particularly fixated on me at the moment, even > ignoring others (for the most part) that share similar opinions to > mine. That's fine... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Knit cannot deal with people who disagree with him, nor can he debate > without insult and/or making a blanket statement that you're wrong/he's > right, sans substance. Essentially, he's an old dog who cannot be trained > to do anything else. Entertaining....and pathetic at the same time. > > -Greg I've notived. But still he's one of us... :)
From: bknight on 15 Dec 2009 10:33
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:58:45 -0800 (PST), dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote: >On Dec 14, 11:21�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:15:06 -0800 (PST), dsc-ky >> >> You just don't get it. �It didn't take great wisdom to figure you out, >> and no one could ever set you straight. �You just know everything. > > >Iver s aid I know everything. I never even said that I was >absolutely correct about anything regarding Tiger. I just stated a few >facts and expressed an opinion (or several opinions)... which really >seems to set you off for some unknown reason. Some things are facts >(pretty much indisputable)... he's a liar and a cheater for sure. He >has on course outbursts and fits, slams and tosses clubs. He's rich >and he's a great golfer (probably the best ever). Some things are >opinion... he's probably a punk (there is some evidence), but that is >open to debate. Maybe he's just a spoiked brat... what's the >difference? "Pitts was right" is also an opinion (with some evidence >to back it up), yet debatable. Of course that was also bait. That many >want to give him an excuse is also an opinion. Of course you are >welcome to have different opinions and express such here, as is >everyone. Just don't be so surprised if not everyone agree with you. That would never surprise me. The cascade of posts from you saying the same thing over and over did though. Everything you just said above was rained down more than a few times and you were obviously gloating because you didn't like him in the first place. There's always something sad about people who want successful people to fail in some way or another. > >If anyone in RSG comes off as someone that knows everything... it >could easily be you. Nah. Its been said that I never take a stand on anything. LOL > You also contradict yourself... by first saying >that you have to know Tiger very well to have a meaningful opinion, >then cite psychologists that don't know him as having the true answers. > They pretty much have the same info regarding Tiger that we >do. Here's a good example of your inability to make sense. Since I didn't make both statements how in the world could I contradict myself? You need to think that out. Then there's still the unbelievable reasoning of yours that a lay person can be more knowledgeable about psychological matters than a professional. > And you seem particularly fixated on me at the moment, even >ignoring others (for the most part) that share similar opinions to >mine. That's fine... Mainly because you replied to me and we had that thread going for a day or two. Then there's your persistence... BK |