From: Bobby Knight on
On 26 Feb 2007 09:03:43 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid(a)> wrote:

>On Feb 26, 7:41 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...(a)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:15:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...(a)>

>> Pathetic is that, if you didn't care, you would take the time to
>> mention it. There was no call for you to gossip about Bret's posts to
>> another news group.
>> --
>I didn't bring the issue of what people think of Bret up. I just
>commented on it. Again, if this level of "caring" is important to you,
>I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Rob, every time I start to think that you're sane you post something
idiotic like this. You absolutely brought it up...that is what
commenting on it means. Surely you aren't that senile. Damn, I'm
probably 10 years older than you and it's clear to me.

Just in case you forgot. Here's your "comment", now try to spin that
a comment isn't bringing something up.

Pllum wrote:
> Yeah, Annika talks the trash but I have a really hard time believing
> he has it in him to spew the personal insults and vulgarity that Eric
> did. There's a clear difference between Annika and Eric. Plus, we
> all know Annika's a little teddy bear underneath.

You responded.
>>Really. Might want to check out what the photo newsgroup thinks of Brett.

The fact that you feel sorry for someone that calls you on being
absofuckinglutely wrong speaks volumes. You're the one to be pitied.
It was exactly what I called it....gossip, and you DID bring it up.

/ \
"Someone likes every shot"!
From: John van der Pflum on
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:13:40 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)>

>absofuckinglutely wrong speaks volumes. You're the one to be pitied.

Nice tmesis.

Start clearing your calendars
From: Bobby Knight on
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:26:24 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy(a)> wrote:

>nice tmesis

An attempt at obfuscation, if nothing else. :-)
/ \
"Someone likes every shot"!
From: zumafan on
On Feb 24, 8:07 pm, "Dene" <gdst...(a)> wrote:

> Name the RSG familiars who attend Pittsburgh or Hershey. Did the

You can take Pittsburgh off the list, I don't (and haven't) post about
it here anymore.

From: dgeesaman on
On Feb 25, 1:58 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...(a)> wrote:
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateS...(a)> wrote
> > Some people here might have a major self-worth problem if there were only
> > 50 posts here per day. They would lose their entire social picture. Oh
> > well, who am I to tell addicts they are disillusioned?
> If you thing RSG has become a bad place to get golf information, let me tell
> you, this is a perfect example of how it's a REALLY bad place to get
> psycho-analysis.
> Randy

While I was saying that in jest, what else would describe the raw
emotion some people put into their arguments here? The amount of time
and energy spent by some posters is hard to describe any other way.

RSG has a charter. The charter says that the subject of the group is
golf. Not politics. So the discussion here, to continue the analogy,
is that conversation is about golf. Some other people (whom I mostly
leave in my killfile) seem to think that's not true. For all the talk
and bs about how long people have been posting here, there is an awful
lot of pompous ignorance of the fact that their 'rules' are in
violation of the charter. The charter that predates all of us.

The 'club' conversationists would be well served to create a newsgroup
called I'm serious.