Jump to content

disco111

Established Member
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

disco111 last won the day on April 19 2015

disco111 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Plays from the Tips

About disco111

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Moore, Okla

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    10
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Found the info via an EBAY pro shop seller. There were 2 models of this club, the VRS and the VRS X. The X model was a forged offering and for what ever reasoning, Nike did not put the nexcore printing of the toe. So my thinking that they are / were a knock off, has been rectified.
  2. Picked up a set last night and noticed that pictures show on the toe face (vertical) there was printing nexcore. This set does not have that. Does anyone know if that was stamped or laser etched? If stamped, it's possible that it just wore off. Aside from that, they look exactly like the Nike pictures for that model. Appreciate any feed back.............
  3. Very frustrating dealing with anyone that's a know it all and very condescending. Now I remember why I haven't been back to post here in over a year.
  4. Well Kuchar's does not fit that criteria. His handle is braced against his forearm and is held as you specified - in relatively one place in all three dementions I totally understand "WHY" it was put in place, as I previously stated. Again, I understand at the present time, they have no problem with the un-anchored stroke, but that's not to say a problem might not be forth coming on the big tour if Scott should happen to win and others follow suit and start using the long putter again. I realize this is nothing more than pure speculation on my part, but my overall confidence in the USGA is not favorable.
  5. I understand the concept of Kuchar's stroke, that's why I used the more standard stroke reference. When using a belly putter, it's not a pendulum stroke. The stroke is still made with the arms and hands and the putter angle is very much the same as a standard putter not pressed to the belly. Now the long putter is closer to, but not quite a pendulum stroke. There still is an angle from putter head to shaft. There is reported griping coming from the senior tour about Langer and the USGA has clarified that he is not anchoring, but rumblings are still on going. Main point of contention is that it happened once and IMO, could/would very easily happen again, if the big tour started to have guys winning with it again.
  6. The banned usage of anchoring was/is a total joke. For well over 20+ years it was legal, until a couple of players started winning when using it and a few influential players got their shorts bunched up and started moaning foul. The USGA/R&A catered and made IMO, a political appeasement move. But it's totally fine for Matt Kuchar to anchor against his forearm, I mean anchoring is anchoring, but that's OK, only because it looks like a more natural standard putting stroke. I really would like to see Scott use and win with the long putter un-anchored and see the fallout that would ensue, with those again yelling foul and again the USGA jumps up with banning rhetoric. Then have Scott follow in Ping's and VJ's footsteps and stand up against them.
  7. Dave, your more than entitled to your viewpoint and beliefs, but the main crux of what not only you but others are not comprehending or perhaps just want to totally disregard, because it does not fit your agenda, is the fact that the marshal was duty bound to enforce an arrest and the only available resource tool available was his weapon. Hopefully you never get your home burglarized and especially when your at home asleep, because that thief and that's what he is a thief, just like the guy with the clubs, might just want to do you considerable harm if you encounter him. Now don't say it's two different examples, because it's not. A thief can and has turned into something a whole lot more violent many times and it's a 50/50 chance that either you or him will either go to a hospital or worse. So don't ever offer the "Nobody should ever be in danger of dying because of theft" BS. I'm sure they put that on the tomb stones of the poor folks that got car jacked and shot to death, because it was only a theft....................... that went wrong.
  8. OK, some folks just do not want to read and comprehend.................The fire marshal, even though retired, is STILL CONSIDERED A PEACE OFFICER, which is law enforcement. Now under this heading, he is duty bound to take steps to apprehend. No it's not like being in the armed forces, apples and oranges. Correct on the part that not every arrest calls for an officer to draw the weapon, but an officer has several other implements available that this particular fire marshal did not have - mace, baton, other officers coming to assist via radio alert and most of all age and conditioning. An active street officer should be in good enough condition to go hands on when that action is called for, but sadly we've seen that;s not the case against some suspects. Now considering that we're dealing with a senior which has none of the listed implements listed, he used what was available to apprehend. Now what the fire marshal did is/was totally justified and legal as far as apprehension. As for verbal threat - we've already addressed this and as for kicking the guy when he was down...........we were not privy to what totally transpired. While I do not condone striking a compliant offender, this could have been a "I said stay down", if the offender attempted to move or get up, instead of shooting the guy. Don't honestly know what transpired, just saying what if and attempting to show a possible different side to what was offered. I watched the video and saw the kick, but it was not like he was trying to kick a field goal. To me it was more of a stay down. Look at how long it took for this clown to respond to a gun in his face. If this was an active on duty uniformed officer, you most likely would have seen a hard takedown and then we most likely would be having another thread complaining about police brutality. The only other person that could have been remotely at chance of being hurt in this altercation was a guy on a cell phone, most likely 911-ing and he put himself in harms way if you will. Now the gun here is a tool and it's up to individual to know and respect how and when to use said tool. The fire marshal, contrary to those that seeming have a problem with the use of that tool, used it correctly and again, it was the only tool available.
  9. The good guy isn't a very good guy. I'm at a total loss on this comment...........Just because of a verbal threat to a real bad guy. I have to shake my head and laugh at the majority of posts about how reckless this arrest was and people where in danger and so on and so forth. Just because a uniform officer makes an arrest on the street against a bad guy, with a weapon drawn, you do think that the surrounding folks are not in danger. Any time a weapon is involved things can go south, but thankfully it does not happen the vast majority of the time. Some stated facts.....1) The gunslinger was not only licenced to carry, but was a state certified peace officer, which means that he has the right and more importantly the duty to stop a crime in progress. That crime in progress was selling stolen items, that just happened to be his, but none the less it was his duty to apprehend. 2) Was his verbal skills lacking?.........As stated prior, yes, but we're dealing in vocabulary. You'd be shocked and most likely appalled at the vocabulary used everyday on the street by officers making an arrest. It's these verbal commands, right or wrong in some peoples opinions, that are used to get the bad guys attention and get him to hopefully respond before it escalates into a shooting. If you've never worked the streets and dealt with the street dialog that's used, then you have no idea, but that's the vocabulary that used and what bad guys will respond to. Now could he have used something less out right other than "I'll kill you" .......sure, but again as stated prior, It's doubtful that he's made many open street arrests and his verbal skills were lacking. We have IMO, 3 types of people.......The good, the bad and the ugly (Old Clint Eastwood movie title). We know the difference between the good and the bad, but the ugly is folks that sit back and watch and then complain about the good guy doing the job that they don't want to do and overlook that fact that a bad guy is a bad guy. Running down the good guys only emboldens the bad guys and makes for less of those that want to take on the job of being the good guy.
  10. Upon reflection, all folks that carry should have to go back and take a 2 hour course on how to use verbal commands. Here's a great example................If the fire marshal used the following , I think everything would have turned out so much better............... "YO PLAYER.........GET YOUR FACE IN THE DIRT OR I'M GONNA BUST A CAP IN YOUR AZZ.........YOU FEEL ME PLAYER.........
  11. No apology necessary, but thank you anyway. The entire point was / is that the FBI stats, regardless of fallibility, are the only offered stats to the general public. In addition, we, the general populace, have no way of garnering that information to refute any or all of that information that's offered. Thusly, since there's no one and no where to access this information except for the FBI, we won't see or hear any specific criticisms, except from here. As for news reporting, again regardless of sensationalism, is offered to the general populace on a daily level, both locally and nationally. This is the only way that we have to derive a sense of what's happening. Now as far as "I see bad crime therefore crime is getting worse" does hold a tangible level of relevance, because it's being reported from both local and national areas. The contradiction, imo, derived from not your anecdotal information but rather your stipulation about FBI stats being fallible. Bottom line to my ranting is that with only one, somewhat agreed with, fallible source of information, can one really stipulate that what's offered is truly representative or at least be objective to the fact that statistics can and are manipulated to achieve a desired agenda.
  12. So anecdotal reports and media coverage is a more reliable indicator of crime rates than the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data? OK, I'm trying to understand your point of contention, but you actually contradict yourself. First you say, in a condescending way, that I should look at different gov charts and tables, but then you go on to say and I quote....... "You can also certainly take issue with the FBI's data or methodology"..........and in your area you've surpassed murders and property crime. Now did this information come from FBI statistical info or just from your local news sources? I would surmise that the later is the correct and most likely only source. "but you can't credibly argue that the statistics are LESS reliable than anecdotes and news reports." Of course I can and I offered why..........to repeat, we have only one source and control venue for these statistics and your own admission stated we could take issue with it........
  13. Have no idea what happened to a prior post about statistics / but I suppose I said something that was taboo........but again I'll attempt to rebutt a similar statement............. "Okay, I'll say it: Violent crime is on the decline in America. Statistics have supported this. The news likes to sensationalize every piece of violence. It makes us afraid. Making us afraid feeds various political agendas." The above is of two fold interest and is kind of a contradiction..............Again the word statistics rears it's ugly head and then a further assessment on feeding political agendas. Folks that control these statistics, operative word here is control, most assuredly have or in league with an agenda segment..............Now one must acknowledge that these statistics are only coming from one source and there are / is no other viable counter source that could disavow any of the information that we're privy to. Now if one wishes to take this offered statistical offering as gospel, then so be it, but in the same vein, one cannot ignore the news (even if it's being sensationalized) because it's coming at us daily. Now i will admit that perhaps some areas of the country have seen a decline in overall crime, but they are not areas that in general generate serious amounts of crime in the first place. Nation wide, we've had way to many attacks on police, which unto itself can and will promote further escalation of crime. Here in my neck of the woods it's an every day occurrence of at least 1 to 2 shootings, several armed robberies, at least 1 car chase that ends in a crash and someone gets hurt and an ongoing litany of fraud, shop lifting, assaults an so on and I'm in the heart of the bible belt in what's considered a small to medium population center. There's an old saying........."can't see the forest for the trees".........
  14. Double exclusion if the gun was not present. 1) Old man has no way to stop said thief and thief goes on his merry way and still has the stolen items.........2) Old man attempts to physically restrain and gets his butt whipped and possibly gets worse and winds up in the hospital or worse. Both scenarios only favor the bad guy, who is a bad guy because he has no regard or remorse for anyone else. Police would have only taken a report, if they showed up in a fairly timely manner. But if dispatch forwards a call of man with a gun or in this case officer holding at gun point, the response is immediate. Officers arrive and see someone on the ground and someone holding a firearm at said grounded person, the first thing they do is order the one holding the gun to place said weapon on the ground and put their hands up, seeing that everyone is in civilian clothes. They have a decent starting point via dispatch and visual observations that they are not in any serious danger, but will still take those precautions, for everyone's safety. Now did the old man kind of loose his cool and over reacted verbally..........yes, but as I stated prior, it's very doubtful that fire marshals, even though they go through LE training, have had many if any instances of this kind of an arrest. Now the following is just my overall opinion on the state of affairs in the USA. Crime is rising greatly, just watch the news, police are responsive not pro active, so that leaves the individual to take care of themselves and others, until such time as the police do arrive. We had a problem in this country of folks in general not wanting to get involved, but we're seeing more and more (right or wrong) of people taking a stand and doing for themselves. I think this attitude will only increase because people are tired and fed up with seeing the bad guys getting the best of it. There's an old saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"..............
  15. As has been stated, local rule or committee...............but if neither exist, muni course that really does not give a damn, then it's up to your playing partners. There's no reason that one should be either penalized for a shot that could be playable under normal conditions or taking the chance on getting injured by attempting to hit a stupid shot. If you insist on playing by the rules to the letter, then it's an unplayable lie and you drop. It's highly doubtful that one would encounter such a lie in an organized event, but if they did, refer to local rule/committee.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...