From: John van der Pflum on
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:08:17 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID(a)>

>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:36:23 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID(a)>
>> wrote:
>> >You also managed to run Eric
>> >off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it as
>> >well...because of what?
>> I certainly don't feel that I had much to do with Eric leaving. I can
>> only think of perhaps a handful of posts where I responded to him.
>> But, to be honest, he reaped what he sowed here. He didn't do much to
>> endear himself to people especially with the way he treated Annika --
>> who he called a friend.
>> Are you saying you don't understand why people reacted harshly to
>> Eric?
>Yes. A socially mature adult knows better. Eric has a bit of usenet flamer in
>him. So what? You saying Brett doesn't? What's the point to "reacting"? Like
>mother's around the world have said for generations, if someone, say Mike
>Dalecki, were to jump off a cliff, would you follow?

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.

>How about a bet! I'll bet 10 bucks you would! ;^)

Sorry, you lose. Mail me the $10. :-|

Start clearing your calendars
From: BAR on
annika1980 wrote:
> On Feb 24, 4:40 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...(a)> wrote:
>> I pretty much disagree across the board.
>> All of usenet has declined in a similar fashion
>> since every goober with a computer started posting. For me it's
>> entertaining, but not in any sense serious with respect to golf or people.
> I agree with most of what you wrote (except the part about you
> disagreeing with everything I said).
> One of the reasons for posting in a group where you know the posters
> is because you can gauge their responses. You are right, most of the
> info you get on the internet is 100% wrong. So you need to be able to
> separate the truth from the BS. By knowing the people on the group
> you get an idea of who knows their stuff.
> For example, if you ask a Q. about Operating Systems or Browsers on
> any newsgroup you'll get 100 answers, most of which don't even answer
> the question. Ask a question about Microsoft Vista and some fool will
> pipe up, "You should switch to Linux."
> Let's say I want to know about video capture devices. If I go to
> and ask a question, I'll get 100 responses, most of which
> are by people who don't have a clue. But I know Randy Brown and know
> what he does so if he answers my question I know I can trust his
> advice.
> Similarly, if you are a newbie and ask a golf swing question on RSG
> you might leave saying, "Boy that Hibbard guy sure knows his stuff."
> If you stick around awhile your opinion may change, once you know the
> personalities who post here.
> I know that certian people have certain areas of expertise.
> If I want to know about video I'll ask Randy.
> For clubmaking advice I might ask Dalecki (yeah, right!).
> If I wanna know about drinkin beer and farting I'll ask Big Tex.
> For advice on the long ball, I'll ask Sparky.
> And Frostback is there for everything else.

No fair, you have recycled this post to its limit.
From: glfnaz on

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID(a)> wrote in message
> You also managed to run Eric
> off, who was always willing to set up and event, and do a good job of it
> as
> well...because of what?

Pflum did what?
I don't think John ever attacked anybody here.

From: Howard Brazee on
On 25 Feb 2007 05:05:37 -0800, bajacornman(a) wrote:

>Being all test based is one of it's bigest cancers...
>everything today is visual... and text based doesn't cut it anymore.

Yep. It's also its biggest strengths. GUI is text base with more
work, and can you imagine a camera based replacement?
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:48:11 -0500, "R&B" wrote:

> [Obligatory off-topic, political content]: Now if the two-term limit
> for Presidents was lifted -- I would consider THAT cause for alarm. (Not
> that the fool we have in there now would have a prayer of getting
> re-elected for a third term if such a thing was allowable.)

[Obligatory off-topic response]: Elections can be rigged. Happens all the
time in other countries. Election fraud a serious problem here already.
Would the Republicans have won the last couple of elections without
gerrymandering the voting districts, blocking eligible voters likely to
vote for the other party, various other illegal tricks, etc.? Not to
mention most of the new electronic voting machines do not leave a paper
trail and are very easy to hack. Electronic vote manipulation is just an
extension of what has already been going on for decades.

I'm not saying it has happened, but right now there's really no way to
prevent it.