or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mdl

 And I'm glad you realize that it should be the homeowner's financial responsibility to either protect the windows of the house they bought in the rough or pay for replacing them on occasion.  I just disagree with what I see as a silly, ritualistic idea of courtesy where the "right" thing to do is disingenuously offer to pay for replacing the window when I believe that it is in fact the homeowner who's totally responsible in this case and I wouldn't in fact pay for it.  If...
Sure I exaggerated the number a tad. But my little league fields had two or three houses in easy foul ball territory. The situation is identical. I find it very hard to believe you think the kid or the parent should pay for a window. I think your high horse is totally unjustified here. Sure, if my kid was playing baseball in the back yard and broke the neighbor's window, or I did hitting a ridiculously errant practice pitch shot, I'd pay for it. Absolutely. I just think...
 It's not a straw man at all.  It's EXACTLY the same situation but a different sport.  Why is that a straw man but the golf case engenders moral indignation? And I didn't harm them.  The golf ball or baseball as essentially a natural event in this case.  If I bought one of those houses, I would 100% believe that it was 100% my responsibility to put up protective screening or just accept that I'd be out $X every once in a while when a ball landed in the wrong spot.  I would...
 Fine, what if it's an adult league game at the local park where there's a house 30 feet foul?  Anyone who hits a foul ball is responsible for (potentially) many thousands of dollars of repairs?  
 How is it different than thinking it's immoral for the little leaguer to not offer to mow lawns all summer long to pay for the broken window?  Sure, he could apologize, but any expectation of payment from him is ridiculous.
 This is a poor example.  A better example is someone buys a house that sits 30 feet foul halfway down the left field line of a little league field. Can we agree that it would be ridiculous to ask a little leaguer who pulls a foul ball that breaks a window on that house to pay for it?  How is asking a golfer to pay for damage to a house lining the fairway any less ridiculous?  As @Golfingdad said, this is a ridiculous definition of negligent.  According to your definition...
 This seems more questionable to me.  It seems less reasonable to say a random driver assumes risk by driving next to a golf course.
 I disagree.  If you buy a course-side house, you're taking that risk. That's why most people have netting or screens up.  I see it the same as if you accidentally injure someone (accidentally as in, not hitting into them, something like you flare one into the trees where someone from the hole on the other side has ventured, they don't hear your warning, and your ball hits and injures them).  The person who hit the shot is not liable.  Golf is classified as a "contact"...
 20 yard drop in 9i distance is crazy!  Just from the splits I'd guess there's probably less problem than you think, probably more or less random.  But with the detail about the courses and your experience of the rounds and the crazy distance drop, it does seem like you've been struggling towards the end of the round. Only idea I have (aside from @Lihu's note that he feels like he generally loses focus), is suggested by your comment about trying to fix the distance loss....
My copy came at the end of last week.  It's a pretty quick read (at the once through pace, there will be referencing for sure), but I haven't had a time get past the first part with lots of stuff I already know from being around here for years (you know, think analytically, question often accepted platitudes about what's important for scoring, basics of 5 keys, etc.).  Though even there I've gotten through, and really like, the description of the quantification method of...
New Posts  All Forums: