PGA Tour: Phoenix Open: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

Health warning:
My thread last week seems to have been contaminated somehow, not sure how but I, for instance, have been unable to open it since a couple of hours after I posted it.
Hopefully Davie's theory of some malicious word appearing in an ad is correct and the remainder of the board is as trouble-free as it appears.
Regardless, just a couple of notes this week in the interests of getting a thread moving:

1).A good week in San Diego for following "horses for courses" and local players - there's always good betting value to be found in keeping a judicious eye on those criteria. Certainly not foolproof but well worth consideration every week.

2).They said Leishman was the 13th Aussie to earn five PGA Tour wins. I certainly can't come up with 12 others:
Ferrier, Thomson (if they include his Open Championships), Crampton, Devlin, Norman, Elkington, Appleby, Ogilvy, Day, Scott, and I'm struggling after that! Two to go, and I must think they're older gents who I've forgotten.

3).The Waste Management Phoenix Open this week. I wonder how many pros WM sponsor other than Charlie Hoffman? Hoffman has had a lousy year or so but is one of a number of players who seem to have slumped but may be making a comeback. Steele is another. And will Bill Haas ever find his mojo again - seems to have been all downhill for him since his fatal Ferrari snafu?

4).And several others are clambering their way back from long-term injuries, Kevin Chappell among the best of 'em. Sean O'Hair has been finding some form on the Korn Ferry Tour and plays this week.
One wonders whether others will fully return, Camilo (rehabbing on the Korn Ferry), Van Pelt, Lovemark, fatties Knost & Stadler, Kirk, Hahn & Huh, Schwartzel and Luke Donald, almost all of whom are in this week's field . . . . . . .  

5). . . . . As is Dechambeau who gave himself brain surgery on the flight back from Dubai, has made a miraculous recovery and will be rushed along in Rounds 1 & 2 by Fowler and Finau, neither prolific winners, but at least like to get a move on. Rickie defends his title this week, probably a lousy price but is one of a number of course specialists here, along with Hideki, Woodland, Simpson, Steele and even Martin Laird (who must be teetering on the edge of seeing his playing "privileges slowly slip, sliding away).

6).The Seniors are rocking the casbah in Morocco with a putrid turn out from the American Champions Tour crew but a good turnout from European Tour veterans. Kinda surprised not to find Karlsson's name among them.

7).CBS unveiled their new commentating crew last week - thought Davis Love was better than I expected he'd be, but Mark Immelman is a tough listen. Quite like Trev but I'd imagine they'll be thinking long and hard about older brother Marky. I'd much prefer Matt Gogel or Oberholser but it seems Immelman has the connections. Oh well, perhaps he's auditioning to cover the Premier Golf League.

8).And, on that note, I wonder if the participation In Saudi of the likes of Koepka, Reed, Johnson and Mickelson (and perhaps some others) is linked to World Golf Group?
Anyone defecting to WGG had better not bellyache about anything or it'll be off to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul for them.

How are you not understanding my point?

People make comments about others, it's pretty natural. But people can also accept that making such comments is also acting a bit idiotic. I accept that I can act like a d!ck and have done, and probably still will.

You don't seem to accept that for yourself, but think it's normal to call people names based on looks.

Obviously we are different people.

beninho wrote:How are you not understanding my point?  

People make comments about others, it's pretty natural. But people can also accept that making such comments is also acting a bit idiotic. I accept that I can act like a d!ck and have done, and probably still will.

You don't seem to accept that for yourself,  but think it's normal to call people names based on looks.

Obviously we are different people.

I'm simply embellishing my opinion on what she looks like. Would you rather I just used more ordinary language like "not normal", "not conjusive to a long and fruitful career"?
It would be boring. She's lazy, stupid, self destructive and yes, she looks like Jabba the Hutt. If you think that makes me a d1ck, fine, it's only 606, I'm not required to have decorum or show anyone respect or deferemce they don't deserve, anyway she's "brave and heroic" so she can take all the brickbats and "bullying" can't she?
Sometimes there's nothing wrong with saying it how it is. She's an absolute disgrace to be in that sort of shape and unless she does something about it, won't be around too long to enjoy the career because she'll be on a slab.

Use whatever language you want. You have done for years, it's all part of your persona. Which is fine. You, clearly don't care about how you come across anyway.

And, I still dont really care about the woman. But out of the 2, I know who seems more repulsive.

This was said in ancient times, and still applicable today.

Spoiler:

The girl looks average...


...American, that is...

beninho wrote:Use whatever language you want. You have done for years, it's all part of your persona.  Which is fine. You, clearly don't care about how you come across anyway.

And, I still dont really care about the woman. But out of the 2, I know who seems more repulsive.

Why would I care how I came across? I'd rather be colourful than insipid and boring like you want people to be.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Use whatever language you want. You have done for years, it's all part of your persona.  Which is fine. You, clearly don't care about how you come across anyway.

And, I still dont really care about the woman. But out of the 2, I know who seems more repulsive.

Why would I care how I came across? I'd rather be colourful than insipid and boring like you want people to be.

"it's all part of your persona.  Which is fine...."

What is about this statement that you don't understand?

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Use whatever language you want. You have done for years, it's all part of your persona.  Which is fine. You, clearly don't care about how you come across anyway.

And, I still dont really care about the woman. But out of the 2, I know who seems more repulsive.

Why would I care how I came across? I'd rather be colourful than insipid and boring like you want people to be.

"it's all part of your persona.  Which is fine...."

What is about this statement that you don't understand?

Once again you just can't resist. You write like you're reading a bad sitcom script, but I don't have a go at you for it.

I'm glad you don't care how you come across.

The right wing borderline racist bigoted arseh£le is a great look.

Super

If it is just a persona why not try out a new less racist and areseholy one for a few weeks ans see how it goes? If you aren't actually racist for example it must be starting to cause you great distress to post as if you are?

McLaren wrote:Super

If it is just a persona why not try out a new less racist and areseholy one for a few weeks ans see how it goes? If you aren't actually racist for example it must be starting to cause you great distress to post as if you are?

Still peddling that claim without being able to provide any examples Mac?

If we're talking about trying a new persona, why not try one which isn't a mix of Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Lily Allen or The Guardian?

beninho wrote:I'm glad you don't care how you come across.

The right wing borderline racist bigoted arseh£le is a great look.

You're as bad as Mac, got any examples of racism or bigotry?  No? Thought not. If you think I'm an arseh0le, no problem, the feelings mutual.
Also, even if I was right wing, what's wrong with being right wing? How is it any worse than being left wing? If anything, I'm right of centre, what's wrong with that?

Personally I think being extremely right wing is just as bad as being extremely left wing, however, I don't see anything wrong with being left/right of centre.

bigot
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Now, I may be wrong, but i think it's pretty clear that as per the above definition, you have shown to hit the bill quite regularly. I would start of with your religious views for a start.

Anyway, I'm done on this now. You may be a really nice guy and your friends like you a lot. Alas, you have cultivated an online persona as being distinctly unlikeable.

beninho wrote:bigot
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Now, I may be wrong, but i think it's pretty clear that as per the above definition, you have shown to hit the bill quite regularly.  I would start of with your religious views for a start.

Anyway, I'm done on this now. You may be a really nice guy and your friends like you a lot. Alas, you have cultivated an online persona as being distinctly unlikeable.

Ha ha ha, Pot, kettle black.

I criticise opinions, I am not intolerant towards people holding opinions. I'm no different to you in that regard.

I'm perfectly fine with people being religious and holding religious views, but that's it, they aren't permitted special treatment for their fairy tales.
I simply think that their views are ridiculous, which they demonstrably are. Believing in something without reason, justification or evidence is by definition ridiculous. There's nothing bigoted or intolerant about saying that.

Your absence of any racism evidence is also glaring.

I don't  need to dig up evidence, when it's all based on what I have gleaned and read over however many years. I stand by the view I have made myself and my own opinions.

Anyway, I'm done in this.

Super

I am going to use the Dilahunty definition of belief here. I believe that you are racist.

This belief has been planted by the years of reading your posts and comes into the category of beliefs that are not worldview altering or particularly difficult to accept. White Scottish man is a bit racist whether he realises it or not (Shocker). I don't need more than the perception I have gleaned of you over the years to believe this.

If it ever ends up in court we can then move onto the cataloging all the comments that formed this belief.

What you might want to do is ask yourself why you are so bothered that a few of the posters on here have formed the opinion that you are racist?

McLaren wrote:Super

I am going to use the Dilahunty definition of belief here. I believe that you are racist.

This belief has been planted by the years of reading your posts and comes into the category of beliefs that are not worldview altering or particularly difficult to accept. White Scottish man is a bit racist whether he realises it or not (Shocker). I don't need more than the perception I have gleaned of you over the years to believe this.

If it ever ends up in court we can then move onto the cataloging all the comments that formed this belief.

What you might want to do is ask yourself why you are so bothered that a few of the posters on here have formed the opinion that you are racist?

Wrong. Matt Dillahunty would use evidence and have examples and not belief, you have neither but I can't stop you from having "faith" (believing without evidence) that I am racist.

You're the one who has previously claimed I'm racist, and then when asked to provide evidence completely failed, now you have changed that to it  just being a belief, yet you have no foundation or justification for that belief either.
Please find a racist quote, and we will discuss further.
Funny how you mention Dillahunty, when you've actually just taken a Jordan Peterson presupposition stance. So don't try to tell me what you think I am, why not demonstrate it? Oh right, because you can't.

super

What you are not getting is that I have become convinced that it is true or likely true that you are racist. I have been convinced of this by many, many posts over the years that you have made. That is the bar of evidence I need to believe that someone is racist. Why should I waste hours, maybe days or weeks going through your posting history to convince you that you are racist. What a pointless task.

McLaren wrote:super

What you are not getting is that I have become convinced that it is true or likely true that you are racist. I have been convinced of this by many, many posts over the years that you have made. That is the bar of evidence I need to believe that someone is racist. Why should I waste hours, maybe days or weeks going through your posting history to convince you that you are racist. What a pointless task.

To be convinced of something requires evidence. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of it or you are not justified in holding that belief.
I suspect there might be other life in the universe, but I don't believe there is, belief requires knowledge and evidence , and you have none.
The fact you cannot even think of one instance which wouldn't require you to go through any quotes shows just how low your standard of evidence is for holding a belief. This makes a mockery of your spurious claim that I have made "many many posts" which you deem racist as you can't recall a single one.

Believe what you want, but have the good grace to state you don't have a reason for it, it's just your bias that I don't follow the same holier than thou attitude that you do.

Seeing as you don't have anything better to do with your life, I challenge you to find one.

I have criticised many black people over the years, just as I have white people, but that doesn't mean it's racist to do so. For example Lewis Hamilton is a tw@t regardless of race.
You seem to think that any attack on a person if that person is not the same ethnicity as me is racist, just as you did when you claimed my criticism of Abbott was sexist. That's how pathetic you are.

Super

You are badly confused here. There would only be a burden of proof if I were trying to convince others that you are racist. I am not.

However, thankfully it seems you do a decent job of it yourself.

McLaren wrote:Super

You are badly confused here. There would only be a burden of proof if I were trying to convince others that you are racist. I am not.

However, thankfully it seems you do a decent job of it yourself.

It still stands, you've convinced yourself I'm racist on feelings and unjustified belief. If you had a good reason for being convinced, you'd be able to share it.
The only way you can justify your belief is to provide evidence, otherwise it's no different to faith.

Super

You seem more concerned about the evidence than me, so why don't you go through your posting history and look for it.

McLaren wrote:Super

You seem more concerned about the evidence than me, so why don't you go through your posting history and look for it.

I don't have to because I know I haven't been racist, you're the one with the unjustified faith based belief.
You now have made a claim about it as you said I've done a good job of convincing people I'm racist, that's a positive claim, so prove it.
Of course I'm concerned about the evidence, the question is why aren't you. Show me something I believe on no evidence and I'll stop believing, shame you can't hold that logical position.

Super

You have to ask how I prioritse convincing others that you are racist?

If the answer is not that highly, then would it make sense for me to spend hours reading all your posting history to put a case together?

McLaren wrote:Super

You have to ask how I prioritse convincing others that you are racist?

If the answer is not that highly, then would it make sense for me to spend hours reading all your posting history to put a case together?

It's how you have become convinced which is the question, you've admitted it is on faith. That's pathetic.

If you had a good reason to believe I was a racist, you should at least be able to remember one instance, your inability to do so says a lot about the standards of evidence you require. I. E none

I have not admitted it is on faith. I have admitted that it is based on many of the comments you have made over the years.

Here are some memories for you. Anything you have ever said about Hamilton or Serena.

McLaren wrote:I have not admitted it is on faith. I have admitted that it is based on many of the comments you have made over the years.

Here are some memories for you. Anything you have ever said about Hamilton or Serena.

Comments that you can't recall or even give a context to. It's similar to a bible thumper claiming he felt the holy spirit.

I've already said that making comments about Hamilton and Serena aren't racist. Hamilton and Serena are both complete brats and I've never said anything remotely racist about them.
What a truly pathetic effort there Mac.

Would you have more or less respect for me if I took some time off work, stopped my usual routine and spent a week (which is probably not even enough time) to go through your whole posting history and came to you with a dossier on your racist history?

McLaren wrote:Would you have more or less respect for me if I took some time off work, stopped my usual routine and spent a week (which is probably not even enough time) to go through your whole posting history and came to you with a dossier on your racist history?

No Mac, I would assume you'd be able to give a specific example off the top of your head given that you claimed there were "many many posts" which convinced you of that.

As for having more or less respect for you, I couldn't have any less respect for you and I genuinely believe you don't have anything better to do, you've already said your job is not one you're proud of.

Super

You accept evolution?

Without googling it, and we can see how long it takes you to respond.

What is the primary function of the ribosome?


(posted at 14.21)

McLaren wrote:Super

You accept evolution?

Without googling it, and we can see how long it takes you to respond.

What is the primary function of the ribosome?


(posted at 14.21)

I don't have to know that to know that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Anyway, I don't accept evolution due to ribosomes. Do you?
Evolution is demonstrable, testable and repeatable without having to understand this.

Try harder next time. Your analogy is pathetic.

So you accept evolution without knowing the evidence? Sounds like faith to me.

Ok one last chance.

DNA polymerase?

McLaren wrote:So you accept evolution without knowing the evidence? Sounds like faith to me.

You don't have to understand every aspect of something to determine it is factual.Darwin didn't understand DNA to come up with his theory, it's not vital to understanding it or accepting it. Evolution is observable without the need to understand that. You can't say the same for your belief I am racist.


There is a lot of evidence about evolution that I do understand. There is no evidence I have been racist.

You are worse than the least convincing callers to the Atheist Experience.

What evidence for evolution do you understand?

McLaren wrote:What evidence for evolution do you understand?

Evolution of bacteria evolution and resistance to antibiotocs, fruit flies, speciation, fossil record, geological records, camouflage, evolution of animals in certain geographical areas, change in relation to conditions etc.

Got anything like that for my "racism"?

Super

You are aware of those things, a bit dubious to claim you understand them.

I had given up on this, but this evidence request bullsht is annoying. On more then one occasion someone has flagged up a comment as, at best questionable. Usually realist argues his point.

Theres your evidence. People have raised things with you previously. The fact you don't seem them racist is irrelevant if someone else does.

McLaren wrote:Super

You are aware of those things, a bit dubious to claim you understand them.

Mac, do you understand pore pressure, sequence stratigraphy or unconformities? No, but you know enough about geology to know what it is and accept that it is true.

beninho wrote:I had given up on this, but this evidence request bullsht is annoying. On more then one occasion someone has flagged up a comment as, at best questionable. Usually realist argues his point.

Theres your evidence. People have raised things with you previously. The fact you don't seem them racist is irrelevant if someone else does.

Why is it unreasonable to ask for examples of where I've been racist? If I referred to you as a bad person you'd require evidence to back up my claims I'd be inclined to do so. So shall I just continue to suggest you're a bad person and just claim "I get the impression" you are.

On a number of times, myself and others have flagged issues with things you've posted. Go back and look them up then. No one is stopping you from doing that.

Call me what you want.

beninho wrote:On a number of times, myself and others have flagged issues with things you've  posted. Go back and look them up then. No one is stopping you from doing that.

Call me what you want.

Yet you can't name one, and can't name how they were racist. Well done.
I don't have to look them up because I know I've never said anything racist.
I called Stormzy, Stabzy. Where's the racism in that? London stabbings affect all ethnicities in London.

This is a lovely afternoon read.

I'm not going to debate. You've brought something up, and are defending yourself. Don't change my opinion.

beninho wrote:I'm not going to debate. You've brought something up, and are defending yourself. Don't change my opinion.

Fine, remain an ignorant oaf.

super_realist wrote:
I called Stormzy, Stabzy.

That is one example of you being racist. Good work so far Super. Look further back and you will find more.

McLaren wrote:

super_realist wrote:
I called Stormzy, Stabzy.

That is one example of you being racist. Good work so far Super. Look further back and you will find more.

Why is that racist Mac, you can't just call it racist and not explain why your pea brain thinks it is. Stabbing is not a black only issue, not even close.

It is racist because you are playing on the idea that young black men are associated with gang violence, more so than their actual participation deserves.

You are taking someone who is thought of as a respected figure within the black community and associating him with stabbings just based on the fact he is black and from the black music scene. If he were white you wouldn't have used the Stabzy moniker, and that alone makes it racist.

How many people have you called stabzy or a derivative of?

McLaren wrote:It is racist because you are playing on the idea that young black men are associated with gang violence, more so than their actual participation deserves.

You are taking someone who is thought of as a respected figure within the black community and associating him with stabbings just based on the fact he is black and from the black music scene. If he were white you wouldn't have used the Stabzy moniker, and that alone makes it racist.

Or maybe that he wore a stab proof vest?
Tons of white people are in London gang culture too, which you'd know if you didn't live in your little Edinburgh bubble.
The music scene he is from, which isn't exclusively black either by the way condones and promotes  violence (as well as homophobia and mysogyny) . Its far more a reference to his dodgy background than anything to do with his race, but don't get the facts get in the way of your one eyed view eh Mac?

So you still haven't proven I'm racist, you just jumped to that conclusion because of the way you see the world, and are unable to see there might be more reasons for it.