From: bknight on 15 Dec 2009 10:39
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:45:22 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
>In article <7oosm7F3qis1aU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>> One thing that is interesting about Baker. The moment you appear, he
>> attacks you about a promise you made years ago. However, his buddy Knit
>> made a similar promise about not participating in political threads, and
>> Baker has never said a word to him about it.
>> Why is that???
>Sorry, Greg, but I've never seen that promise.
Its true Alan. I told Pflum that I'd stop being involved in political
threads. After a while it was either that or just leave RSG. So, yes,
Sorta like when Greg left RSG and swore that he'd never come back, but
From: bknight on 15 Dec 2009 10:44
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:50:31 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>The court of public opinion is not based upon facts.
Bert, this is your post of the decade.
From: dene on 15 Dec 2009 12:52
"BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> In article <alangbaker-5886C2.22351714122009(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > >
> > > In the case of Tiger Woods, there is plenty of knowledge to base an
> > > 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.
Uh....uncle al, the kiddie's pal, consider this.
1. Tiger used the word, "infidelity." What does he mean by that?
2. There are testimonies from 6+ women. How many does it take to prove
3. If he's not an adulterer, do tell us why Elin is angry and why TW is
From: dsc-ky on 15 Dec 2009 14:01
On Dec 15, 10:33 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:58:45 -0800 (PST), dsc-ky
> <Dudley.Corn...(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.
Because you keep bring it up over and over and won't move on...
You get the same answers because you keep raising the same questions/
And you'll keep getting the same consistent answers as long as you do.
Actually I did like him in the first place... rooted hard for him in
97 Masters. Same in 2000 at Pebble Beach. At some point though I kind
of lost respect for him as a person (avout the time I realized he was
probably just a rich punk)... I'm not gloating that Tiger is in this
mess... I was poking it at anyone that thought he walked on water.
> always something sad about people who want successful people to fail
> in some way or another.
I didn't want him to fail. I've said a couple times already, I wish he
hadn't done it. that is beyond my sphere of influence. I don't take
any of this banter nearly as seriously as some of the rest of you.
> >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
I don't think I share that thought. :)
> > 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
> 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.
Well, maybe I'm mistaken then. When I get time, I'll go back and have
> Then there's still the unbelievable reasoning of yours that a lay
> person can be more knowledgeable about psychological matters than a
I don't think I ever actually came out and said that... although you
have said over and over and over...
> > 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...
....and yours... :)
From: MNMikeW on 15 Dec 2009 14:09
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> In article <7onf4oF3jmqihU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>> > 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
> No, there isn't actually.
> What actual facts do you have, Greg. Go on: let's see 'em!
What exactly would constitute a fact to you anyway? So the parade of bimbos
on the morning shows giving lurid details are not fact? What about the
published text messages? What about the soon to be released pics?