Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by super_realist Tue 1 Sep - 13:50

First topic message reminder :

It's more the leaving it to the last minute which is nonsense. It is appalling business practice for the buyer to do this, as the seller knows they can keep the price high.

What is the point in the window being open for two months if nothing gets done until the last day? Just make it a day long, the opposite of a DFS sale.

by puligny Tue 2 Feb - 18:50

The amount of practice is an interesting topic. I enjoy practice, but more than a couple of hours on consecutive days and my mind is wandering. Couldn't cope with some of the regimes we asked to believe, though I don't know any pros who practice excessively!

by BlueCoverman Tue 2 Feb - 20:24

Nope there was no swindling involved, no one was more disappointed at his lack of success and inability to progress than the player himself. I didn't tell the story because I was bitter about the way it turned out, just to use it as another example of how difficult it is to make a living at this game.

Anyone remember Dale Whitnell? Learnt his golf at a club near me, played Walker Cup in 2009 and tied for 4th in the Alfred Dunhill in his first pro event picking up nearly 40,000 Euros. Made the cut at the Open in 2012 and earned 15,000 Euros. Now 27 he works at a local pub behind the bar to supplement his income, so even when you get a good start to your pro career there is no guarantee that it will continue.

by super_realist Wed 3 Feb - 6:51

puligny wrote:The amount of practice is an interesting topic. I enjoy practice, but more than a couple of hours on consecutive days and my mind is wandering. Couldn't cope with some of the regimes we asked to believe, though I don't know any pros who practice excessively!

It doesn't just mean practice though, for example, it could be stuff like Running, Gym work, Research into the course you're playing next, working on flexibility, mental aspect of the game, course management etc.

Of course it would be difficult (and potentially boring, just like a real job) to do hours of practice day in day out, but that's what separates the best from someone who doesn't make a cut.

by puligny Wed 3 Feb - 7:23

Super - but do you think we are spun a bit of a line about how much they do? Ever heard the tour pro say "couldn't make practice round/pro am but caddy walked the course" sometimes seems they get by on rally driver type pace notes?
Many have never seen a gym, but that doesn't mean they don't have good fitness/flexibility.

by super_realist Wed 3 Feb - 7:56

We might be, but considering the amount of training people do to be top of their respective sports in real and proper athletic pursuits it would seem crazy to me if people don't put in a similar amount of effort on their game elements. You often hear how much even a snooker player or darts player puts in, golf must be similar in that respect.

You can't have good fitness/flexibility by doing nothing, so if it's not the gym (and I agree that you don't need to be a gym freak to be fit) there must be something else as a substitute, unless you are a Shane Lowry and get by on nothing but practice and pies.

by SmithersJones Wed 3 Feb - 10:53

I see Federer has had Henrik's op - no doubt Mac will be telling us what an idiot he is.

by McLaren Wed 3 Feb - 11:22

I think you will find it wasn't my position but the position of peer reviewed literature.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 3 Feb - 13:20

McLaren wrote:I think you will find it wasn't my position but the position of peer reviewed literature.

You never answered my query re. Henrik and whether his op was osteoarthritis-related or the result of acute damage. You also don't know what the actual diagnosis of Stenson's was. For a 'scientist', you're often not that scientific!

by super_realist Wed 3 Feb - 13:25

'scientist' Laugh

by McLaren Wed 3 Feb - 14:10

Super, in theory (and I don't mean in the strict scientific sense) I am a scientist. Wink

Navy

I have no idea, I just happen to have read a couple of those articles in the days preceding the comment about stenson's surgery so thought it would be fun to post them. If you seriously think I would defend that he shouldn't have had the surgery to the bitter death then you have clearly missed the mischievous nature in which the posts were made.

by super_realist Wed 3 Feb - 14:21

In the sense you have an MSc do you mean? How come you never made use of it?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 3 Feb - 17:15

McLaren wrote:Super, in theory (and I don't mean in the strict scientific sense) I am a scientist.

Navy

I have no idea, I just happen to have read a couple of those articles in the days preceding the comment about stenson's surgery so thought it would be fun to post them. If you seriously think I would defend that he shouldn't have had the surgery to the bitter death then you have clearly missed the mischievous nature in which the posts were made.

Ahh. Sorry. It was a bit of WUMming. Should have seen that. Silly me...

by McLaren Wed 3 Feb - 17:31

I would hardly call it wumming, and as a mod you should know that making that allegation is against house rules.

You are allowed to poke fun at things without it constituting a wind up.

by Davie Wed 3 Feb - 20:39

It's not WUMming it's trolling - and you know fine well you do it. You should also know that is also against forum rules (though God knows it's rarely enforced)

BTW how did you know that calling someone else a WUM is against forum rules? (I don't see that rule myself personally but there you go) - you didn't know you couldn't post pictures so what chance have you got with other rules?

(note to mods, if calling someone else a WUM is against forum rules too then I'm guilty above. What is my punishment?

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 6:54

Why would calling someone a WUM be an offence? It's hardly the worst thing you could be is it?

by westisbest Thu 4 Feb - 8:49

Agree

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 9:10

I was devastated. Thanks for the concern guys. picard

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 13:50

Bob

Yes, if it turns out Doak holds a view as obnoxious as homophobia I can assure you I would never read one of his books again. As I said before, why worry about people with massive thinking flaws when there are plenty of people who don't have such issues.

So if no logical route exists to homophobia, can we agree that homophobia is an illogical position (or at least not logical)?

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 13:51

What a plank you are then Mac, can you be sure there is a single person in the world who doesn't hold a view you disagree with?

I presume you have no friends at all.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 13:59

Super

Look at it this way. When someone makes homophobic comments I loose all trust in their ability to think. It is impossible to properly analyse everything people say so as a practical compromise we use how much we trust someone and what they have said in the past as a way to judge whether or not what they say is worth listening to.

So once someone has made a homophobic comment all trust in their beliefs is evaporated. In order to evaluate what they say from that point on I would have to hold it to a much higher scrutiny than is practical.

It is not about disagreeing with someone, we are talking about a seriously illogical and cruel position in Gerry's case. I disagree with many people (quite a few on this board Wink

) but still maintain respect for them.

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 14:01

By that rationale, everyone you've ever had a disagreement with is someone you shouldn't talk to again, however, as long as they keep their views latent, you're happy to think they're tremendous.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 14:07

Super

I know very few people who have made comments as shocking as homophobia. So no, by that rationale everyone I have ever had a disagreement with is not someone I shouldn't talk to again. Only those who make extremely ignorant comments.

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 14:13

You must think you live in some sort of Utopian world Mac.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 14:16

What are you on about? I live in a world where I don't bother to respect homophobes, racists, sexists etc and choose to dismiss them as a credible source of information.

If that is your idea of a utopia you need to get a little more ambitious. For example that utopia requires the existence of some quite horrible people.

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 14:19

McLaren wrote:What are you on about? I live in a world where I don't bother to respect homophobes, racists, sexists etc and choose to dismiss them as a credible source of information.

If that is your idea of a utopia you need to get a little more ambitious. For example that utopia requires the existence of some quite horrible people.

There's a lot of people in whom I don't respect some of their views, doesn't mean the rest of what they say isn't worthwhile.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 14:26

Super

I quite specifically said the type of view that would make all other views worthless to me were those of the seriousness of sexism, racism, homophobia etc. But for example if someone was a Yes voter int he indie ref, i think it's a dumb arse position but I wouldn't loose all respect for them. Please do stop miss interpreting what I am saying.

I think in the past you have said you have next to no respect for people who believe in a god or follow religious doctrine?

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 14:28

Yes, I have said that, but I lack respect for their stance on that particular view/belief. Doesn't mean I think they are stupid on other positions, or that their other views are not of value and I wouldn't disown them like you seem to do.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 14:33

Can you give me an example of someone that you know to be racist, homophobic or sexist and that you still have respect for other views that they hold?

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 14:48

Why would I let anyone's view on homophobia, sexism and racism in relation to their views on golf course design for example?

It's as irrelevant as to what football team they support.

Patrick Moore was a member of the BNP for example, but I still had respect for his views on Astronomy.
I can appreciate Hitler's views on the Autobahn and the need for a peoples car in that particular era without having to condone the rest of his views.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 4 Feb - 15:28

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/663861210073329664

Just leaving this here...

by kwinigolfer Thu 4 Feb - 15:47

I love the way NRA supporters seek to exclude suicides and accidents. As if all those would have happened regardless. Idiots.

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 15:52

PLus, if suicide perhaps took a bit longer to prepare than the time it took to pull a trigger, then perhaps a few more wouldn't go through with it. You can turn back from a cliff, vomit up pills, take the hose out of the exhaust, but you can't undo a bullet.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 4 Feb - 17:09

McLaren wrote:I would hardly call it wumming, and as a mod you should know that making that allegation is against house rules.

You are allowed to poke fun at things without it constituting a wind up.

Whatever. You need to learn how to inject humour into your writing because they way you write, it's generally hard to take it at anything except face-value. You tend to say something wasn't serious in the first place when called out about it....

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 4 Feb - 17:10

super_realist wrote:Why would calling someone a WUM be an offence? It's hardly the worst thing you could be is it?

It's not. Oh, hang on. Maybe Mac's post about that was a WUM...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 4 Feb - 17:15

super_realist wrote:Why would I let anyone's view on homophobia, sexism and racism in relation to their views on golf course design for example?

It's as irrelevant as to what football team they support.

Patrick Moore was a member of the BNP for example, but I still had respect for his views on Astronomy.
I can appreciate Hitler's views on the Autobahn and the need for a peoples car in that particular era without having to condone the rest of his views.

Quite. Must be a nice Universe you inhabit Mac. Everything so black and white, not to say, irrational...

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 17:19

Navy

I guess I will ask you the same question that super failed to answer. I assume if you are going to criticize my position you have an example of someone who you know to be homophobic, racist or sexist and who you still respect and make time to listen to their opinion.

If not then both you and I are in exactly the same position in practical terms.

Not many things in life are simple, I grant you that, but writing someone off for being homophobic seems like one of life's simple conclusions.

by Nay Thu 4 Feb - 17:34

Is writing someone off as a person who could be of value to society for being homophobic, not just the same as writing someone off for being gay.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 17:41

No. I am not trying to remove any rights other than the "right" to have me take you seriously.

by Nay Thu 4 Feb - 17:53

So apart from being a condescending wankstain,

Your argument is that it is ok to prejudice someone because their opinion differs from yours.

Interesting argument thats all.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 17:59

Yes, if their opinion is homophobic, racist, sexist etc. And not just because it differs from mine but because they are actively trying to harm others.

This board as got to a strange point where suggesting that homophobes are tools constitutes prejudice.

by Nay Thu 4 Feb - 18:08

I dont agree with Bubba viewpont on gay people, but to my knowledge his beliefs have never led him to hurt anyone.

by Hibbz Thu 4 Feb - 18:14

I'm with Mac here.

LL are you really trying to argue that there's no difference between dismissing someone who's a bigot and dismissing someone because they prefer to have intercourse with someone of the same sex?

Or have I missed your point?

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 18:41

McLaren wrote:Navy

I guess I will ask you the same question that super failed to answer. I assume if you are going to criticize my position you have an example of someone who you know to be homophobic, racist or sexist and who you still respect and make time to listen to their opinion.

If not then both you and I are in exactly the same position in practical terms.

Not many things in life are simple, I grant you that, but writing someone off for being homophobic seems like one of life's simple conclusions.

Actually I did answer you Mac, with examples. I suppose you don't care about Darwin and his theory of evolution because he referred to Africans as savages?
Got any Hugo Boss stuff Mac? They were the Nazi's uniform suppliers just so you know, how about Ford cars? Ever been in one of them? You know Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathiser don't you?
I'm sure you've enjoyed some music by people who have strange views about women too.

by Nay Thu 4 Feb - 18:43

No

But Mac is saying that he will dismiss every opinion and the value said bigot has to society based on one opinion they have.

Just because someone is a bigot doesnt mean their otherviews are any less relevant. By this token if we take Bubba as an example as it was his comments that started this.

Say Bubba has a view on cancer saying that it is bad and that more money should be put into not only finding a cure, but also the education around the danger of modern life such as excessive alchohol and smoking. By macs views this is an invalid and wrong opinion based on him being a homophobe.

by Hibbz Thu 4 Feb - 19:00

Okay LL but that isn't what you said.

Also far be it from me to be in Mac's mind but I don't think he's saying the bigots other opinions are automatically wrong just that he would dismiss/wouldn't be interested in them.

I'm inclined to think I'd be the same in the case of someone who was openly homophobic.

My opinion of Patrick Moore (because of course he would care what a middle aged no mark from the South of England thinks of him even were he alive) has also taken a nose dive given superrealists revelation.

Bubba I'd maybe give the benefit of the doubt initially in the hope he was taken out of context but if those are his true views then next time we're drawn together he'll be getting short shrift.

by super_realist Thu 4 Feb - 19:07

Seems a bit petty though. Imagine you required a life saving operation, and the only person who could do it was a sexist? Would you be interested in his opinions on whether he could do the operation? Of course you would. "Principles", for what they're worth would go out the window.

History has been full of people who might have had bad ideas in some respects, but been creative and inventive genius on the other hand.

Do you care that VW has its roots in the Nazi Party? Or Ford for that matter? You wouldn't get anything done if you had to ignore the bad views people might hold.
Steve Jobs has been described as an awful man, but that hasn't stopped billions buying his stuff has it?

Mac is also a hypocrite, he often says how much he despises Donald Trump (a racist, homophobe and sexist) but would be happy to take up my invitation of playing his course. I suspect Mac simply doesn't believe half of what he says, he feels he just needs to project himself as this right on, man of the people, but just ends up sounding like someone from a student political party, wet, naive and 'fighting a cause' for a reason he simply thinks he needs to be seen to be 'fighting'

by Hibbz Thu 4 Feb - 19:21

Yeah I get that and given your scenario I'd take their (not necessarily his!) opinions on my operation but surely the other extreme is that we're saying it's perfectly okay to say what you like and think what you like because you might one day be able to save my life.

I guess that harks back the the life not being black and white discussion of previous posts.

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 19:38

"Mac is saying that he will dismiss every opinion and the value said bigot has to society based on one opinion they have"

No, I said that I am happy to place practically no value on anything else they say. Obviously excluding ludicrous unlikely scenarios such as super raised. For example I accept the structure of DNA put forward by Watson and Crick despite the fact Watson was a racist and sexist. But ask Watson's opinions on almost anything else and I would rather not hear his reply.

Super

Do you think Darwin was more or less progressive on his views of other races with respect to the time period he was alive?

And no, of course I don't wear Hugo boss to get on the bus. Wink

by McLaren Thu 4 Feb - 19:40

Hibbz

hopefully you have managed to put across my ideas better than I have because at the moment it seems I cannot convince some people that holding homophobic opinions should have some pretty obvious consequences for how serious said homophobe wants to be taken.

by kwinigolfer Thu 4 Feb - 19:41

When it comes to doing stupid things, Bubba is a rank amateur compared to this guy:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/04/martin-shkreli-congressional-testimony-turing-pharmaceuticals-valeant-fda-drug-prices/79808004/

It really takes something (can't think of anything else offhand) to unite Dems and Repubs in Congress, but this berk has seemingly done the impossible; trust he'll get his comeuppance in short order.

by Sponsored content