zeg

I found another reasonable key combination for dealing with this. After the unwanted window pops up, if I hit esc, tab, cmd-L, then the desired behavior results. (If I remembered what was going to happen, the esc could be left off.)

Well, apostrophes do have legitimate uses in plurals. Per the Chicago Manual of Style, lower-case letters and abbreviations with either 2+ periods or mixed case all form plurals with apostrophes. ("x's and y's," "M.A.'s and Ph.D's," and "MAs and PhD's.") Although I don't see a rule for abbreviations like R11S, it's hard to argue against the possibility of confusion (I didn't realize they'd released the R11Ss already!). Since the purpose of punctuation is to reduce confusion, that sort of use isn't crazy---even if technically incorrect, it is analogous to other exceptions to the usual "contraction or possessive" usage. The rules are not simple enough to make all apostrophe errors objects of ridicule. While "its" and "it's" come up often enough, not everyone is up on the details of their style manual.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but can you point to a spot in the rules where the distinction between practicing and starting a stipulated round is stated? I looked and found no guidance on the matter. It's certainly a reasonable interpretation, but half the time I play I don't have a designated tee time. From the rules as written, I don't see why if a player announced, "This is a practice stroke," and made his stroke, it would be considered otherwise. Regarding the justification / rationalization, there is the problem that the rules of golf do not generally apply outside of the stipulated round. The prohibition on practice is only enforced when you begin your round. Ok, so you practiced a minute earlier, and now you're DQ. What does that even mean if you're just playing by yourself? This rule, outside of an actual stroke play competition, doesn't make sense to me. That it's not enforced for matches reinforces my opinion of this, because that indicates that its reason for existing is one of equality of access for competitors, not a general objection to "previewing" the course. It's one of a very few rules that, for me, are not worth worrying about.

If, as the OP stated, he decides before hitting a shot that he is going to play the second, regardless of the outcomes, it's not necessarily a penalty. Practice on the course before the round is permitted except in stroke play. In a situation where you're playing non-competitively, it's a bit unclear (or, perhaps, inconsequential) whether you're playing stroke or match. In any event, I don't see any "real" issue at all.

That is correct about the prohibition on practicing before a round in stroke play. Personally, though, if you're not playing in a competition, I wouldn't sweat it. If you don't have a chance to warm up, I think declaring ahead that you're going to throw away the first shot is fine. Since the penalty is DQ, which is irrelevant to a casual round, there's really no problem as far as I'm concerned. If you're playing a stroke play competition where everyone is present in the same group, the rationale differentiating stroke play from match play is not applicable. (The idea behind the rule is that in stroke play, different players tee off at different times, so would have different access to the course before their round. In match play, since everyone involved tees off at the same time, practice is permitted because everyone has the same opportunity.)

To be fair, the first two of those have some reasonable logic behind them. The New York Times only recently (~ 2006) stopped using an apostrophe after decades, and the acronym is a reasonable, if unnecessary, extension of the rules for plural letters (now only for lower case plural letters, at least according to the Chicago Manual of Style). Those two don't bother me so much because of that---they're more arbitrary than mixing up "it's" and "its."

I believe it. I very rarely make these errors, except when I'm typing in a hurry. Writing by hand, I don't think I've made an apostrophe error in years.

I think you've found the solution to the performance enhancing drug quagmire. We'll introduce a bonus modifier for the use of performance degrading drugs.

Seems they left the golfers out of this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/jack-nicholson-leonardo-dicaprio-tom-hanks-denzel,28904/

Yours is the juvenile, or perhaps naive, response. It's foolish to start and end the discussion with, "That's just how it is. Period." Whether or not you like it, reasonable people disagree about whether various substances should or should not be illegal, treated as performance enhancers, etc. It's far too serious and subtle a discussion to just accept that the status quo in the United States is the correct legal approach and move on. It's certainly not "juvenile" to discuss the effects of the drugs and ask whether the policies concerning them are sensible. In response to the OP, in the article I read about the judo contestant, it pointed out that the powers that be (I've forgotten which body it is) was considering removing the ban on marijuana use, except in "sports that require aiming or a steady hand." That was something I had never considered before, but I think it makes some sense. I think recreational drug use is the private business of the athlete, especially if it's an international organization and the various countries do not agree about the legal status of the substance. However, it's a legitimate (if perhaps quixotic) goal to prevent performance enhancement. Whether the enhancement is provably real, or suspected, I think it's ok---preventing the appearance of foul play is important as well. So I think banning it where it might be beneficial, but otherwise ignoring it strikes a reasonable balance. Regarding the illegality, while I don't think the sport governing bodies should enforce their own rules about recreational drugs or activities, I do think it would be reasonable as an ethics matter for them to expect their competitors to obey the laws wherever they are. Thus, if a competitor is found guilty of a crime, it would be reasonable to ban him on the grounds that the sport does not wish to be associated with criminals. However, I see no reason that drug crimes should be singled out here, and I think it's important that the penalties be contingent on a finding of guilt, not merely an accusation or suspicion.

It depends a lot, but like a few others above, it's not a simple matter of hitting 3W because the driver is giving me trouble. When my driver swing is working well, my 3W is usually also working well, but it's usually a bit lower and straighter. So on those days, it would really depend on the situation. I would normally hit driver in a wide open situation, but a 3W if it were a narrower landing area. When my driver is giving me trouble, which it has lately, then the 3W is almost never any better. In those cases, I would probably drop all the way to a 4I. Late in a round when I start to get tired, I have learned I should probably go even lower because my longer clubs give me trouble. Better to have a very short tee shot in play than flubbing a longer club or hitting it badly OB...

That's sort of true---you can practice your chipping stroke on whatever sort of grass you can find and practice distance control. This is helpful, but it doesn't give you a chance to practice accounting for what happens after the ball hits the ground. Particularly if the green is sloped, I find that chips react differently from putts so while some of the reading is the same, it really takes separate practice. The other problem is that most grass you can find is, at best, like the rough. As a result of this, my short game from the fairway is markedly worse than from the rough.

As I've said before, this is not directly related to the question of whether marriage is permitted. This is a separate question of discrimination laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is already banned in at least some contexts in many states that do not permit same-sex marriages. Permitting the marriages would not change discrimination laws. The connection to that case is simply that, if same-sex marriages are not permitted, wedding photographers would not be asked to perform them. That's a fairly weak connection.

I wouldn't expect a photographer to concern himself with the "sexual proclivities" of any of his customers. I don't suspect there are many wedding photographers who inquire as to whether their clients partake in any particular sex act, heterosexual or homosexual, as a condition of accepting the engagement. A same-sex marriage is not about sex any more than an opposite-sex marriage is "about" sex. It's about companionship, sharing of responsibilities, etc.

One of the things I like about the university short game area here is that they actually have sand buckets for filling in divots. Most places I've seen that actually allow chipping instead have big signs admonishing against leaving ball marks. So while they're good for chips, it still leaves the 10-50 yard range all but impossible to practice.

Fair enough. The rose-colored-glasses syndrome is one of my pet peeves. In many ways the "good old days" weren't so much "good" as just "old."

Well, you've shown one example; without addressing whether I think it's a good or bad outcome in that case (I'm honestly not ready to make a judgment on that), there are plenty of examples of unjust legal decisions. I can say with some certainty that even if I decided with 100% certainty that the photographer got screwed, I don't think this would approach the top 10 worst legal judgments I'm aware of. Additionally, when I say I don't think the risk is as great as you make out, although I think you exaggerate the number that are likely to occur, I don't mean only that. I also mean that I don't think the convenience of not facing such lawsuits is an absolute freedom that trumps the right to legal marriage / unions.

I don't think the previous post was marginalizing as much as you think. While you do have a possibly legitimate concern, remember that we're working in the real world here, balancing issues that affect people's lives. It'd be great if your hypothetical wedding photographer could be completely free to keep to his principles, whatever they are. However, he is not living in a vacuum, he is part of the society we all share. It's not outrageous to expect that he may occasionally have to make concessions in return for a peaceful, functional society. Remember, you're arguing here that his freedom of choice not to spend an afternoon taking photographs of a couple whose union he feels is wrong is as important as their right to share the public legal recognition of their union (or marriage or whatever) and the civil and legal rights that accompany it. That seems more than a little unbalanced to me. We've already decided that certain forms of discrimination are not ok, and that being part of a free society occasionally means we must all accept, or to some degree be a part of, something we don't like. It's reasonable to debate and discuss the limitations. I think that you're sort of arguing cross purposes here. You seem to support gay marriage as I'd define it (not because you approve of it, but because you think the legal framework should be open to same-sex couples). However, your concern seems to be that people will be forced to take part in rituals they are not comfortable with. The latter is a separate decision. I don't think the threat of being forced to provide these services is as great as you believe. I agree with much of this, but you're dead wrong on your assumption that it used to have more sanctity. I'd argue the reverse: it used to be, if you became pregnant while single, you had no choice but to get married and stay that way, whether you were happy or not. People cheated, had kids with other people's spouses, etc, in the past just like they do now. We're just more honest and open about it now.

Please don't describe that position as "supporting traditional marriage." There is no real opposition to "traditional marriage" at all, so that's a very misleading characterization. And while I do think it's possible to oppose same-sex marriages without being outright "hateful," I dispute that you can do so without being bigoted, and without dehumanizing homosexuals. Can you provide a reference to these "countless lawsuits?" I am skeptical, not that there have been some lawsuits, but that these are numerous enough to make this a real "fair concern." A price of living in a free society---one that afford the religious freedoms they're afraid will be eroded---is that there will be disagreements and we'll all pay some cost for that. The "religious freedom" not to confront this issue simply cannot trump the basic freedom to choose the person you wish to legally marry. Note that I don't believe a church or an individual should be successfully sued because they refuse to take part in a marriage they don't agree with. There are some limits, particularly when it comes to equal rights protections of access to public or public-serving "businesses," but these aren't new ground to break: most of them have been faced in the race context. Sorry, you can't choose to be judged on all your great features, well except for that ONE solitary issue where you discriminate against people because their private lives and access to civil rights and protections make you feel icky. Because this is very, very much the same as forcing people to the back of the bus, keeping them out of the lunchroom, and in separate schools. Finally, a couple of points we agree on. The government needs to recognize unions because of the myriad obvious situations where families need legal recognition. If they dropped the term marriage, that'd be fine with me. But, you know, the other side could fix this, too. You could just accept that when the government talks about "marriage," it is talking about a "legal marriage," which is functionally equivalent to a civil union. Are you really saying that your only problem here is that they're using a word that you think is magical? It doesn't make any sense to me that someone would be happy to let couples legally unite, if only they didn't use the same word we like to use.

Unlike the Chik-Fil-A boycott, this is intolerant and unfounded.

Ah, ok. I wondered whether that was true as I wrote it, but figured someone would step in so I didn't bother checking. Thanks.

Interesting point, but I am not aware of any sport that permits players, referees, etc, to arbitrarily alter the rules for a single competition (other than Calvinball). Even if you wanted to allow it, it's also not easy to decide, and from experience in the rules forum, nearly impossible to get general consensus on which rules can be waived "safely." I think the possibility of arguments and disputes is a lot higher if you start allowing agreements to waive rules, and it strikes me as unnecessary.

I doubt it. As far as I know, other than the case referenced above where you have evidence that an outside agency has taken your ball, there are no cases where you get to apply even "known or virtually certain" information about where the ball should be but not apply a penalty in doing so. Local rules need to comply with the basic principles of the other rules of golf, and I doubt that guessing where the ball should be in the fairway meets that requirement. I'm with Fourputt here, if the course is in the kind of condition where this is happening enough that it really matters, it's just not playable by the rules. If I were the groundskeeper, I'd be worried that people walking across the fairway would be doing serious damage to the turf.

Thanks, I didn't want my earlier post to leave you with the wrong idea. :-) Actually, I've probably only tried them once, and that would have been probably ~20 years ago when they first opened where I lived. All I remember was being unimpressed. Now I'm just generally not into fast food, so you could substitute almost any chain in place of Chik-Fil-A and I'd feel about the same. Well, except McDonald's. Actually, I really wish the flap were about McDonald's---on the rare occasions (maybe once every couple years) I wind up eating there, I regret it in a way that I don't get with any other place. BUT, I digress.... Oh, I did find one of my own words I disagree with. In the third paragraph, where I said "are unnecessary" I should have said "are wrong" or "are intolerant" or similar. Ok, wise guy. That's *two* words I should change. :-)

When I was in the LA area, I shared some of your frustration, though I at least had some options. There was one course near me that had a very nice putting green, but like the others mentioned here, it was putting only. This course also has a decent chipping/pitching area, except that its "green" is some short-mown grass, almost as nice as a fairway at a so-so course. It's a pretty good place for pitching practice, where hitting the landing spot is enough to get a pretty good idea of where your shot ends up, but useless for learning to judge roll on a true chip. Another had a practice green that allowed both putting and chipping, but it was on a nasty slope with only a few feet of grass around where you could chip from. It was pretty good in terms of practicing the true chips, except there wasn't a level putt on the whole green, so you really couldn't practice hitting a line. There was just too much uncertainty from the slope. It also had a couple of the faux-green pitching targets, so it was decent. Now that I'm in Indiana, I find that more courses allow at least chipping on their practice greens. The Purdue University golf course has a very nice short game area, including a large swath of fairway to pitch from. That's something that's been missing at a lot of courses: I get plenty of practice chipping/pitching out of the rough, and then find I'm lost on a chip from the fairway because I never practice. No more. And this one is good for up to 30 or 40 yard approaches. There's no charge for using this one, though I think you're only supposed to use it if you are going to also hit some balls at the range. The city course here also has a practice green that allows chipping, also with some fairway, though not nearly as much. So I feel pretty fortunate now. If only I had the time to practice more often......