shredfit

Wondering if Tiger would get criticized for making public statements for his plans on what he could do for the 'human' race. hmm?

Anyone else catch the Johnny Miller's remark about giving Paddy a 'lesson' on ball striking, again totally silencing the other announcer, presumably in disbelief of Millers comments? Of course, Paddy is such a class act he probably just listened to Millers 'Lesson' and mentally, flipped him the bird, when Miller left. Paddy's probable self talk, "Who does this clown think he IS? ... How many majors has he won? ... Perhaps I should be giving him the 'lesson'..."

I've played in the 20's before and it is interesting. Things that I did: I used three balls and rotated them every shot, keeping 2 warming in my pocket... if not your looking at 3-5 club differences in distance. Hitting a GIR is almost impossible. I hit some greens, but the ball would bounce 10 ft in the air off the green. I used a hand warmer in between shots. Used short tees for the driver... Stick them in very little... just the sharp tip goes in the ground. Wear layers of clothes and socks (or not just 1 pair of socks). Mind you, you almost have to be used to winters like this (Minnesota for me) or it would certainly be hell.

Globalization will have positive(short term) and negative(long term) effects, which likely will have nothing to do with government. Econmic globaliztion, or centralization of one world monatary system would be scary at best. Would the whole world become credit driven with nothing to back it up? Would multi-national(now world corporations) be able to use their influence to effect world economics? Who could stop or regulate banks from monopolizing? How would/could resourses be distributed fairly? "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principles of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale” ------ Thomas Jefferson

Iacas pretty much covered it... However, here is a little personal experience I've had with a shotgun. When younger, my brother and I would go to a shooting range in South Dakota. It was just really and area away from everything on a hillside... They did have and old car door(from a 70's Buick...it was thick and heavy) there and I wanted to see what would happen if I shot it at close range. About 20 feet away put a 5 inch hole clean through the door including the interior side with a 3 inch 20 gauge shell with #4 bird shot.(probably about the same load as a regular length 12 gauge). Indeed very powerful... were talkin' cutting a man in half from that range... not just putting some bb's in the body.

Economic globalization can be also viewed as economic centraliztion, which certainly has a potential for power abuse. And it is happening now.... European Union/Euro(monetary unit) North American Union?

Your kidding right? At close range a shot gun with "bird shot" will put a 5 inch hole in someone. No special round necessary. I don't care how big you are... A 5 inch hole that you can stick you arm though, going through the body WILL stop them... This would happen, if you shot someone(with a shotgun) 10-15 feet away from you... so you got to be pretty close.

I too have looked into how the financial system works, and quite frankly, it scares the crap out of me. At best, it is unconstitutional. I also think it matters very little who actually wins the election, the powers that be, will get their agenda done anyway. Now, I'm off to check my credit score...

Nice! A political catch phrase (libertarianism). I however, prefer Constitutionalism... or lack there of... nutcases aside.

This tends to raise some eyebrows... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

Wow! some of you have lots of shoes... My wife has been looking at me funny because I have 3 pair Nike, Footjoy, and Etonic... oh yeah, and some Bite golf sandals.

I'm not really shifting goalposts... The variable I'm refering to is or should be feel/or tactile related like "non-auditory vibrations"(there could be others as well). How can one test this using their methods? It's like saying taste is not limited taste buds but also to smell... but only using smell as a testing variable. The only conclusion one could draw from the study is that sound plays a factor in golf ball impact identification independent of feel. After all, you rarely hear someone pulling your finger(unless) I'm done too... it has been fun... thanks for the debate iacas

Actually, chemical equations are representations of what is happening MOST of the time(certainly not 100%). If broken down to the quantum realm, probabilities come into play. If they heard the wrong ball via headphones this make the experiment even less valid due to the methodology(more on this later). If the testers used the methodlogy you just described (ie 1,2, and 3). This is a classic example of a conditioned response(Pavlov). In other words, the testers are basing their results(of which balls they hit) on the pre-determined condition(the sound). Thus, the experiment became more of a psychology study of the participates. It also makes no sense to condition(or fool) the tester by feeding them a wrong or incorrect sound. Again, I'm questioning the methodologies. If they are "tricking" them via sound this is again conditioned. They could choose a methodology to test feel as a tactile response. My conclustsion is also that same as before... The test is not valid.

Actually, I majored in science (Biology w/a minor in Chem). Scientifically, getting something 100% of the time is exceedingly rare an unlikely. Typically, a trend is established and conclusions can be drawn from the trend. This is what sent up red flags about the validity of the article/study. The article has little merit, I'll point out why... If they were certain they'd hit the (wrong) ball... They MUST be basing this on something... another variable besides sound(they are wearing headphones). Therefore, this variable must be taken into account... or the distribution wouldn't be 100%. What is the varible? Is it tactile? If so, it merely points to misinterpretation of the said variable... Which is about the only conclusion one could draw for the given trend(ie 100% wrong). That is my point, If the test doesn't involve anything random... They MUST be basing their choice(wrong ball or right ball) on something other than sound... or there would be a more random distribution of the trend... This would show that the testers really didn't know what ball they were hitting and they were guessing(which you say they are not)... but it wouldn't be anything near 100%.

You are correct, My CB's do have a slight offset.